Slashdot Mirror


30,000-Lb. Bomb On Fast Track For Deployment

coondoggie writes "Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 200 ft. underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 5,300 lbs.

707 comments

  1. Imagine... by Shikaku · · Score: 4, Funny

    a beowulf cluster of these!

    :<

    1. Re:Imagine... by siloko · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      . . . or more scarily sending Bill Clinton on a reccy!

    2. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cluster bombs? I thought they were outlawed.

    3. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . . . or more scarily sending Bill Clinton on a reccy!

      Sssshhh, Bill has sent Monica out to get one of these smoking babies!!!

    4. Re:Imagine... by Tempest451 · · Score: 1

      WOOT! DTRA in da house! Yes I work for them in New Mexico.

  2. So, it's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to MOP up evil. I guess you can cry over spilled milk.

    1. Re:So, it's time... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much? Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:So, it's time... by Lakitu · · Score: 1

      it's a 30,000 lb bomb with 5,000 lb of explosives, that hits its target (after being dropped from very high altitudes) over twice the speed of sound. What exactly do you think kinetic bombardment is?

    3. Re:So, it's time... by pudge · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much?

      Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?

      Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.

      I see. Maybe the Pentagon should hire you instead.

    4. Re:So, it's time... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?

      [Beavis and Butthead style laughter]

      You said "sexual".

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    5. Re:So, it's time... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      A 30,000lb bomb with no explosives. An inert device.

      Basically, a bullet from space.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:So, it's time... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes I do. Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature? As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:So, it's time... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      P.S. Penetrate. Like with a penis. Heh. Hehehehehh.

      ...heh.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    8. Re:So, it's time... by init100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ever heard of a kinetic penetrator? It is a type of ammunition used in the main gun of tanks. It contains no explosives, but rather a very dense, arrow-like projectile which uses its high speed (and thus its kinetic energy) for all its destructive power. Kinetic energy weapons are generally weapons that rely solely on their kinetic energy for their destructive power.

      Other more sci-fi types of kinetic energy weapons would be rail guns and coil guns.

    9. Re:So, it's time... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      30000 lbs ... how many obese Americans does it take to reach 30000lbs? Can you fit this many on a jumbo jet?

      Simple math would have given you the answer. Assume a very modest 200 lbs per person, 150 people would weigh 30000 lbs. That many will easily fit on a jumbo jet, with plenty of space left.

    10. Re:So, it's time... by scotsghost · · Score: 1

      So... we can use a jumbo jet full of fatasses as a kinetic bunker-buster?

    11. Re:So, it's time... by LaminatorX · · Score: 2, Funny

      How could there be any sexual connotation to a massive penetrator exploding deep inside their hidden tunnels? I mean really, this is serious business we're talking about here.

    12. Re:So, it's time... by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Funny

      five second kinetic penetrator

      Hey, that was my nickname in high school!

      Fixed that for you ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    13. Re:So, it's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out "warm, moist, and slightly dank" when describing the hidden tunnels.

    14. Re:So, it's time... by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      it's a 30,000 lb bomb with 5,000 lb of explosives [ ... ]

      A few years ago it would have been impressive, but since the "crisis", 30 000 lb is, like, what, 100, maybe 150 kg ? Ok, it's gotten a bit better now, make it 200...

      It's like when I had to go shoot a few scenes in Italy a few years back and I came to a toll booth on the highway and they asked for a few million lira. So I went "eeep, millions ! what am I going to do ! I'll never be able to afford this ! I'll be stuck here ! and I won't be able to ship my shots ! and .. uh wait, that's 3 euros (or whatever it was at the time), never mind.

      Those stupid low scale units are *really* annoying.Get with the times already.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    15. Re:So, it's time... by Dishevel · · Score: 0, Troll

      Personally, I'm still sniggering at it being called a "penetrator". Compensation much?

      Um ... no. You realize "penetrate" has meaning completely separate from sexual acts, right?

      Especially given that for hardened targets deep underground, kinetic bombardment is probably a more appropriate approach.

      I see. Maybe the Pentagon should hire you instead.

      You are an idiot.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    16. Re:So, it's time... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      So... we can use a jumbo jet full of fatasses as a kinetic bunker-buster?

      Ummm ... Wan't that what they use on the WTC?

      Too soon? :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    17. Re:So, it's time... by pudge · · Score: 1

      Likewise, you realise that my sense of humour (like most people here) thrives on double entendre, especially where the second meaning is sexual in nature?

      It wasn't funny. It's a normal name for this type of munition, and the jokes have all been done decades ago. But whatever, to each his own.

      As for the Pentagon hiring me, nah. If they actually used something I did to kill someone I'd be pretty sad. :(

      Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?

      If the U.S. had killed Osama when we had the chance, long before 9/11/2001, I think that would've been a very good thing.

      Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary. That's not to say everything the Pentagon does is good and right, of course. But killing is not all bad.

    18. Re:So, it's time... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I think this OK within the OST guidelines, but how could another power know that there were nukes there or not? The Russians tolerated spy satellites but they are a little higher up. I think KEW's in space are a bad idea because it would make everyone nervous and could lead to something we really don't want. The KEW's could work in a very high flying plane too. We may already have that.

    19. Re:So, it's time... by fractoid · · Score: 1
      Meh, senses of humour differ.

      Wouldn't you be more sad if the Pentagon couldn't hire good people and your friends and family died because of it?

      If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion, I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.

      Killing people in this world, for our defense, is unfortunately necessary.

      Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    20. Re:So, it's time... by pudge · · Score: 1

      If I felt my country was actually under threat of military invasion ...

      So 9/11 is OK with you? (I know you don't mean that, but that appears to be what you are saying, and I don't understand it.)

      I'd be the first person to sign up. It's far more likely that my work would be used to invade another country for economic or political reasons.

      No, it's really not.

      Killing people who are hiding in a bunker half a world away in a bunker isn't defense.

      When that bunker is being used to house a nuclear warhead on top of missile pointing at ROK or Japan or Hawaii ... yes, it is.

    21. Re:So, it's time... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other? A modern nation is far too delicate, immobile, vulnerable and tied to world commerce to ever commit to a nuclear war. Nations today are like fat kids at an internet cafe, if you will. They're all too content, too soft, and sitting too close to one another, to ever get into fisticuffs.

      It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it. Small ideologically driven extremist groups, often well funded by wealthy private entities, striking at the civilian infrastructure of relatively peaceful nations. The book (not movie) 'The Sum of All Fears' describes a frighteningly plausible example of such a scenario.

      I wouldn't worry so much about a superpower with nuclear ICBMs - North Korea is about the only country with both the will and the means, and that means is rapidly crumbling. I'd worry about a smartly dressed guy walking into the foyer carrying a nuclear bomb in a briefcase.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    22. Re:So, it's time... by pudge · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly believe that warfare in future will be nations fighting each other?

      Erm. That is what YOU implied, not me.

      It's interesting that you bring up 9/11, because that event epitomises the future of war as I see it.

      So it's odd you said you would only work for the Pentagon if we were under threat of "military invasion."

  3. Wikipedia Article on the MOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP by auric_dude · · Score: 4, Informative
    2. Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While we're at it, also have a look at this Russian thingy. It's thermobaric, and thus very different in its intended use (not a bunker buster, but what you'd use to clear a large network of caves or underground tunnels with surface exits in one sweep), but of the same magnitude of raw power.

    3. Re:Wikipedia Article on the MOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      While we're "while we're at it" have a look at:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_quake_bomb

      Which is almost certainly the design they are basing it on, which was originally conceived by the engineer and all round genius (and these days would be geek) Barnes Wallis:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnes_Wallis

      Who you may also know of if you've seen:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dam_Busters_(film)

  4. Question about scalability by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 1

    If the average "Please do not ride the bomb" sign is approximately 1 ft square, would this sign be scaled to 20ft square on a bomb this size? Is the sign always proportional to the payload?

    1. Re:Question about scalability by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      "Do not ride the bomb" signs were declared Un American and banned in an executive order signed by President George W Bush.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    2. Re:Question about scalability by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Funny
      "Do not ride the bomb" signs were declared Un American and banned in an executive order signed by President George W Bush.

      No no no, you're thinking too un-Orwellian. The "Do not ride the bomb!" signs were amended to "Do not ride the bomb without waving a US flag".

    3. Re:Question about scalability by domatic · · Score: 1

      But doesn't a rider on the bomb throw the aim off a bit? But I hear grease penciling obscenities is still great though originality and wit must be shown. No drawing on a big set of genitalia and calling it good.

    4. Re:Question about scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Penetrator? Reminds of me of george carlins bit about bombs being related to sex and that america has a bigger dick policy of shooting our dicks into other countries when we think they have ones bigger than ours.

      Honestly though violence only begats violence, one country doesnt want to feel inferior to another so they threaten back and fourth till one gives in or gets blown up.

      Is this really how we want to see america seen? A warmongering state? Its shame that is all we good for anymore. We dont make anything, we dont export anything, we dont make big technical or medical advances, all we do is use everything from other countries and then try to police them when we are threatened by them or need to show how powerfull we are.

      America is more or less the roman empire right now and we all know how it ended up. Not to mention the sorry shape our country is in, do we really need to be wasting so much money on weapon development, occupying other countries over what a few there did and going into space when americas own people need help?

    5. Re:Question about scalability by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      If you want to draw parallels between the US and the Romans, we would currently be in the Republic phase. About 100 BC, give or take a few decades. Post Carthage (equivalent to Soviet Union?). Very rich and powerful, but not the Roman Empire people think of. It was still a conservative republic that was relatively isolationist. Over the next century, the Romans expanded their dominance and territory, got richer, switched from a republic to a dictatorship, and became the decadent Roman Empire everyone thinks of. That phase lasted 500 years (though only the first couple hundred were all that great).

      So by analogy, the US would still have its best years ahead of it.

      Or if you prefer to compare Pax Romana to Pax Americana timelines, we're still in the first half of the Peak of the Roman Empire.

      As you can tell, I find the parallels fascinating. But in the end, its probably just interesting trivia.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    6. Re:Question about scalability by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      What's interesting about the US is that the people that invented it were well aware of the Greek and Roman examples and designed the Republic to be resistant to the rot that set there. Certainly the US Republic has survived Richard Nixon's fall. I'd say that's impressive.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Question about scalability by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going for a reference to this

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueuauKKjPZI

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    8. Re:Question about scalability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While we survived Nixon, it remains to be seen if we have weathered the storm resulting from the coward and moral degenerate Ford pardoning him. The fact that Nixon didn't spend the remaining years of his life in prison certainly emboldened the criminal excesses of the Bush administration, especially since some key players like Dick Cheney played a major roles in both the Bush administration and the Nixon and/or Ford administrations. No president has as severely damaged the country as Bush has, and yet because of prior precedent set by the Nixon and Ford administrations, he and key members of his organization will likely escape prosecution. A precedent set by Nixon, then exceeded by Bush, what comes next? If laws and conventions protecting the balance of power are not amended and enforced, if signing statements continue, if civil liberties further eroded, and if we have constant warfare, dictatorship is inevitable.

    9. Re:Question about scalability by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Meh.

      Bush authorized torture at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The next administration cancelled it. There's no comparison between him and Nixon in terms of their intelligence, ruthlessness and ability to bring down the system. I could quite see a less well designed Republic degnerating into civil war during Nixon's impeachment. Nothing Bush did ever came close to being as corrosive as that.

      And locking up politicians - even ghastly ones - after they fall is not a panacea for executive nastiness. Loads of countries regularly lock up or execute fallen politicians and they are hardly Jeffersonian paradises. In fact there's a strong correlation between locking up people from previous administrations and banana republic status because once in power people will cling to it even harder if they expect to be imprisoned once they lose. Basically if you can retire peacefully you're much more likely to retire. Otherwise you might try to steal as much as possible and put tanks on the streets if people start to complain too much. Much of the world is like this - everyone knows all politicians are crooks, some have been locked up or executed for it. But that makes the ones currently in power much worse because they have no exit strategy.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  5. 30,000 lb bomb? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't think any 30,000 lb device needs to be an explosive in order to destroy an underground bunker.

    Hell, I'd be surprised if it doesn't just keep falling.

    1. Re:30,000 lb bomb? by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      Evidently, the North Koreans have underground tunnels straight out of LOTRs.

      Big job, big bomb.

    2. Re:30,000 lb bomb? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Kill the mole people!

    3. Re:30,000 lb bomb? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This thing is supposed tp go through 60m of 5000psi reinforced concrete, then explode. In a room full of gas centrifuges spinning at over 100K rpm the explosion would be redundant.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  6. Wow by Slur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're supposed to be impressed at the latest version of the club. Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
    1. Re:Wow by Toonol · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If it's used in the struggle against despots and tyrants, it IS impressive. A peaceful and civilized nation needs to keep the biggest and best weapons on hand, else they be overrun by mongols (figuratively).

      Fortunately, peaceful and free nations also generally have the best technology, industry, and economy, which allows us to have the most impressive weapons.

    2. Re:Wow by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some of our clubs in the past have leveraged highly advanced theortical nuclear physics.

      Now, personally I find this idea pretty impressive, club or not.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    3. Re:Wow by hnangelo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what makes you think you are not the "mongols" to other nations?

      Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?

    4. Re:Wow by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      It's not a club, it's an exploding rock.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?

      Sweden, maybe.

      It's certainly not the U.S., what with all the wars it's been involved in in just the last century.

      But you say "allows us" as if the U.S. is exactly what you mean - and the bomb TFA is about is a U.S. weapon - so I must draw the conclusion that you're living under the delusion that the U.S. is "peaceful and civilized", with "the best technology, industry, and economy[!]".

      Please wake up.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    6. Re:Wow by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Though true, what's interesting about this one? I don't mean that entirely as a rhetorical question: it's possible there really is something interesting here. But I haven't seen a good summary.

      Is it just, take a normal bomb, make it really really big, and slog through some tedious but mostly straightforward engineering challenges to get the thing to work? Or is there something that, at a conceptual level, is different when you get to bombs of this size?

    7. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the US is not a person. Everyone I know is peaceful and civilized...

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to move out of your mom's basement.

    9. Re:Wow by noundi · · Score: 1

      Exactly what I was thinking. Then again I'm not surprised to see idiots buy into the good vs evil fairytale. People are so self centered that they genuinely think they're some sort of paladins.

      --
      I am the lawn!
    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bob Marley also hates industrialized nations and white people.

    11. Re:Wow by hnangelo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I absolutely agree with that. And I just got modded flamebait for questioning that same conclusion. But that's how it is, let's censor what we don't like.

    12. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and without all those wars fought by others, Sweden would be either Nazi or Soviet right now. For all the flaws the U.S. has, they're still on our (Europe) side.

      The world isn't going to be run by pussies any time soon. Trying to be kind to absolutely everyone will give you Rosengård. Peaceful and civilized my ass.

    13. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.

      Ooooo, you are SO cool.

    14. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 5, Funny

      And what makes you think you are not the "mongols" to other nations?

      My dual senses of proportion and perspective.

      Peaceful? Who are we talking about again?

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.

    15. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the US is not a person. Everyone I know is peaceful and civilized...

      Yes, likely. Most US citizens are peaceful and civilized when either at home, or alone.

      Now just put some of them together and send them abroad...

    16. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that's the same reason North Korea and Iran need nukes for self defence. To avoid that THEY be overrun by "mongols" who have already demonstrated - in Iraq - that even cooperating and dismantling any weapons that might have been useful as a defence will only make it easier for the invaders.

    17. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're dredging through history:
      If it weren't for the French the US would still be a British colony.

      Go eat your freedom toast, wave your American flag, drink your beer, and get some fucking perspective before going on a tangent.

    18. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Ehh, why? Do you have any idea what the public services in Sweden are like? No road tolls, free health care and education up to the university level, social services etc. With less taxes, there are less services, which means you need to spend more money to get the same services. The end result is that the poor are left to rot. How is avoiding that uncivilized?

    19. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.

      > If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today

      No, they wouldnt. Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago. They were neutral in both world wars. One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.

      > how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?

      You need to get out of the US and see the world. Or even get out of your white middle class lifestyle and look at the US. It's not all first world love and harmony. Whilst you guys are developing superweapons your literacy rates are 3rd world poor in many areas. Your healthcare system is the worst in the western world. You economy belongs to China. The US is a nice place, but not on the same level as, for example, Sweden.

      You have yourself a nice day now.

    20. Re:Wow by oneirophrenos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sweden is a major arms exporter, selling weapons worth of 1.4 billion USD in 2008. So no, they're not any more "peaceful and civilized" as most others.

    21. Re:Wow by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Sweden, may be.

      No, Sweden has vikings. This is way too close to the mongols metaphor for my tastes.

    22. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Switzerland?

      Peaceful in the sense they haven't fought a war in ... many years. Plus they manage to have a gun ownership rate much higher than the US and have a much lower rate of gun crime.

      Civilised in the sense that they are an 'advanced' 'western' country.

      I know both are debateable, but if Sweden might count then Switzerland does.

    23. Re:Wow by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 0, Redundant

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.

      Wish I had the mod points to mod this "funny".

    24. Re:Wow by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when the human race does something impressive.

      Creates an interconnected network of computers and servers and uses them to send and receive massive amounts of porn?

    25. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.

      The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.

      60% tax uncivilised
      Torture civilised

      Can you see what is wrong here?

    26. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      German? How so? Sweden were neutral. That's where we (Denmark) sent our Jews in WW2 to avoid them being sent to concentration camps.

      Afterwards they even managed to keep the Russians out. Sweden has repeatedly shown to be able and willing to spend enough money on defence to keep their freedom. Even now, while the JSF and Eurofighter Typhoon are being held up in budget meetings, because neither the US+allies or the EU can seem to get enough funding together to build a plane, Sweden - a tiny country compared to the US and EU - have built a modern plane of their own.

    27. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Is it? How do you figure (he queried, knowing the answer)?

      If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?

      So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?

      Peaceful it sure isn't, as illustrated by 30+ wars and so-called "police actions" in the 20th century.

      Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system. Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians, buying all the mom and pop's all over the country. Blatant disregard for international treaties and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.

      So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    28. Re:Wow by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're stilling making clubs. That says something about the human race.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    29. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Actually, a 6% taxation rate would be.

      I don't remember who said it (someone will be able to fill in here), but the grade of civilisation of a nation can be deducted from how it treats its lowest members. Treating the poor well requires money in the pockets of the nation, so it can spend.

      The problem isn't so much taxes. The problem is rather that it's hard to agree on what it's to be spent. Sweden had a pretty good spending policy, but as everywhere things are getting worse.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Wow by Splab · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Guns don't kill people... Or does that only apply when people question the US gun laws?

    31. Re:Wow by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?

      Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?

      Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship? Do you want to make an argument about freedom being better than security? Because I'm pretty sure that Bush II's regime - your beloved saviors of Iraq - passed a shedload of US laws based on exactly the opposite position.

      Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons, the enemy of evil is not automatically good. In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    32. Re:Wow by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ya know, the vikings were known as fierce pirates, so that makes 'em cool in my book. The mongols only double as fairly poor ninjas, so no way to compare them well.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will be designed for a very very specific purpose, to defeat hardened and deeply buried targets.

      It will require a completely new bomb rack I'd feel certain, complex but just scaling
      It will require adapting a GPS (I'd assume) guidance package, not difficult (algorithm tweaking)
      It will require building a really (really) heavy casing that is as narrow as possible (so at to build up maximum kinetic energy on the way down), it'll be interesting to see if it uses depleted uranium (the obvious technical choice but not held in popular stead politically)
      Finally, it'll require a fusing system that will survive the journey through the rocks and explode the bomb at the right time. That's probably the most challenging part, IMHO.

      Bottom line, though, you're right, it's not -conceptually- different than bombs that predated it. But don't tell the design team that, it'd be kinda like telling an OS development team that Snow Leopard/Windows 7/Ubuntu 9 is just a tweak of the previous OS.

    34. Re:Wow by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      I for one think the Swedish are smug

    35. Re:Wow by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      To compare Vikings and Mongols one could possibly use the length of their beards.

    36. Re:Wow by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Well, if you step aside of your religious beliefs about taxation, you may notice that Sweden and the other Nordic countries are ahead of the United States. So 60% taxation may be not so bad, after all.

      I wouldn't mind paying the taxation of Sweden if I could have their standard of living.

    37. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective. Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world: http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/155/26024.html

      Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things to like about USA and I agree with most points for example in this article: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmFlMzViMWZmYjY5ZmUzNDg2N2JiMGMxZDllYjA2MmM= . But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!? You must be joking.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    38. Re:Wow by Rennt · · Score: 1

      "Proportion" a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb
      "Perspective" American
      If you think about it carefully, I think you will find that you missed hnangelo's point.

    39. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I don't think a country in which a person is forced by law to work 60% of their working hours as an unpaid slave to others can be called civilized.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    40. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden, maybe.

      Definitely not Sweden. I'd have said Iceland, perhaps, since they don't even have an army to begin with - but they were part of the "coalition of the willing" and even had someone down in Iraq (one gal, affectionally referred to as "our troop").

      Of course, compared to the USA, both Sweden and Iceland are.

    41. Re:Wow by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I don't think a country in which a person is forced by law to work 60% of their working hours as an unpaid slave to others can be called civilized.

      You're free to leave, so you're not a slave. And not all of those 60% can count as working for others. I'd be glad to take libertarian propaganda seriously if it didn't have such gaping holes in it.

    42. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Ok let me rephrase: I don't think a country in which a person is forced by law to work nearly 60% of their working hours as an unpaid slave to others or else leave the country can be called civilized.

      Happy?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    43. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, that's the same reason North Korea and Iran need nukes for self defence. To avoid that THEY be overrun by "mongols" who have already demonstrated - in Iraq - that even cooperating and dismantling any weapons that might have been useful as a defence will only make it easier for the invaders.

      Wow, Mr. Ahmadinejad! What a surprise seeing your post on Slashdot!! Can you send your autograph!?

    44. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Apply those standards to all countries and you'll still not see any country considered "peaceful and civilized". Sheesh.

    45. Re:Wow by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Actually, his point was that America has done far less invasion and damage than say Germany who created 2 WWs. Of course, that is not quite true. Germany invaded neighbors, who happened to be world powers as well. The war was then spread around the world due to so many of the EU countries were the very definition of Imperialism (Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, UK, Dutch, etc). If China/America ever get in a direct war, you can bet on it that it will be a WW as well. Short lived, but still a WW. China will attack the entire west with their growing nukes. More than likely it will be combined with the expected space weapons for their new space based weapons.

      As to America vs. history, we are no different. We did a cold war with USSR who did not have the economic might of us (or any of the large western countries), but certainly had the military might. But like all the previous superpowers, we are doing our fair share of senseless wars. At this time, W and the neo-cons have shown why bad leaders in a democracy can be so horrible. To be honest, I do not see that much difference between NK and ourselves. NK's leaders has ran their country economically into the ground, all the while pursing military might. If NK's leader thought that they could invade SK and get away with it, I have little doubt that we would hear a false pretext on it that would lead to an invasion. My guess is that they would claim that they KNOW that SK has WMD. THey would then present evidence that is KNOWN to be false by all, but backed by some big names. Then they would get China, Iran, or some other Asian countries to go along with them. In the mean time, they would disregard their damage to their own economic future. Oddly, I think that NK would handle their Invasion/Occupation better than we did. They would allow Generals to do it, rather than VietNam Era Chicken Hawks, that spent their youth avoiding having fight a war.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    46. Re:Wow by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      France helped America in the same way that Britain helped India. The only difference is that Britain was successful in their conquering India while France was not successful in getting America.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    47. Re:Wow by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Funny

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective?

      Wow, an overlord with -1 troll moderation. Never thought I'd see it : )

      Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    48. Re:Wow by selven · · Score: 1

      Blatant disregard for international treaties and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.

      I don't like the US but that's some pretty good blackwhite right there. The US refusing to follow laws it never asked for is bad but when the US is the one pushing its policies on other countries they're the bad guys.

    49. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn`t the Russians that helped chase the Germans out
      of North Africa or the Russians that helped destroy the
      Germans ability to fight by leveling all of their cities.
      Sure, the Russians helped the effort. However, without the
      extra manpower and manufacturing of the US, Russians would
      have all been exterminated besides Jews and Gypsies.

    50. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am impressed.

    51. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called twig technology.

    52. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly how many of the 50 states weren't taken by force? And you've never invaded Canada or Mexico or Honduras! Nor would you support and harbour terrorists! If imperialism is expanding your economy through military force how exactly is the US not imperialistic?

    53. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Let me correct that for you: A paid "slave" to ONESELF and others.

      You see, it's not like "the state" (ooh scary) stealing your money and giving it to someone else; society as a whole - including YOU - benefits from paying taxes.

      In fact I reap the benefits of it every single day. Free or subventionized education, healthcare, infrastructure and much, much more.

      Help your neighbors, is that such a hard concept to grasp?

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    54. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my original point. Good on you for noticing.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    55. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      You really don't see the difference?

      One is called "international cooperation", the other is called "imperialism".

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    56. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would only be fair, the swedes had been trying to make the Germans speak swedish for hundreds of years before that.

    57. Re:Wow by yabos · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US has repeatedly violated the Geneva Convention as well as free trade with Canada(although that's hardly on the same level). The USA was happy to sign those treaties to look good but as soon as it prevents them from doing something they want to do, they are happy to violate it.

    58. Re:Wow by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A health care system that would be right at home in Blade Runner is uncivilized. Wake me up when the US moves out of the dark ages with it's health care system (for all of it citizens, not just the ones who have money).

      You're also enormously overestimating the effect of the US on the outcome of WW2 - one of the biggest turning points, and perhaps the fulcrum of change for the whole war, occurred in Stalingrad in 1943. I don't remember seeing many pictures of GIs there.

      While the US was no doubt a welcome ally to have during the second world war that helped to bring it to an end more quickly, you were hardly the shining white knight who saved us all from German oppression.

    59. Re:Wow by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The USA was happy to sign those treaties to look good but as soon as it prevents them from doing something they want to do, they are happy to violate it.

      Don't forget the Vienna convention on consular relations, too.

      In that case, they just conveniently "forgot" to implement legislation to make the States comply with the terms of the treaty (e.g. when a foreigner is arrested, the appropriate embassy needs to be notified) - hence, you can be stuck in jail without anyone from your country ever knowing what happened, since the local cop just has to comply with State laws, not international treaties that the US is signatory of.

    60. Re:Wow by Strandman · · Score: 1

      "A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?"

      Iceland, maybe. 0% spendage on military, and on top of the rankings (at least before the banks there took a trip under the permafrost)

    61. Re:Wow by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors.

      Sorry, but you are wrong. The only difference is that the good ole' U.S. of A. has been a little more sly about their imperialism than other nations in the past, instead of going in with full military force, we usually just choose to send in the CIA, overthrow a democratically elected socialist government (read: not friendly to US economic interests:'-( ) or two, put in place a brutal fascist regime (read: friendly to US economic interests ;-D ). This has happened over and over and over again -- please look into CIA actions in Panama, El Salvador, Honduras, the Congo, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, and many, many others. Or better yet, pick up a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. We are an empire, we have just had the good sense to push this fact into the shadows and dominate the planet economically instead of militarily (well, we still do the military thing sometimes, it makes for great television).

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    62. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we are sticking to the 20th Century, we've got 5 major wars (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf). In each case, we were either attacked ourselves (WWII), came to the aid of allies (WWI, Vietnam) or went in with the backing of the UN (Korea, Gulf War). Most of the small stuff falls into the category of intervening in civil wars/coups in the western hemisphere or trying to breakup fights between small nations. I admit that our record in the western hemisphere is not particularly pacifist, but I also doubt that things would have been substantially better without US involvement. Similarly, intervening to try to stop others from fighting isn't exactly militarism.

      Our electoral system is organized differently from other republics, but that by itself doesn't mean it is flawed. Close campaigns are a good sign as they pull leaders into at least center right or center left positions unless they are able to deceive voters. With close campaigns, statistical noise is more relevant and can cause issues like the comical senate seat awarded to the comedian. The judicial system needs work, but I would rather trust myself to the American system than most of the rest of the world. I'll grant that we could do better on the murder count. Being anti-capitalist and complaining about the welfare system just indicates that you value equality more than total wealth. Americans (at least traditionally) tend to prefer a position with higher total wealth at the expense of some equality, this is a difference in values, not a sign of being uncivilized. Corporate money buying laws is bad, but it is an imperfect world. Politicians supporting the interests of their constituents (which the interests of corporations in their districts align with) is natural, and if the mom and pop can't compete, then they should make way for those businesses that can. The treaties that we have violated were either not ratified by congress and so are not binding or were signed with defunct entities (USSR).

    63. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the way you wrote "I" I will assume you live, or at least are from Sweden. While this is obvious to me and you, I think you will have a very heard time convincing an American that paid taxes are *not* something you lose. Sure, in America where the public services paid for by taxes are generally very poot (if not outright missing) and if you have never experienced the opposite and are not sharp enough (like clarkkent09 here) to imagine it, that's all you know.

      And furthermore, since most Americans never leave the comfort zone that is US to travel to foreign countries (sorry, Hawaii doesn't count), I don't see this attitude changing anytime soon.

      What I do like though is that many Americans are outright insulted when you say you would rather prefer the Swedish system over the American. Yeah, I make decent amount of money, probably enough that it would be "worth" it to live in America instead and pay for the services as needed that in Sweden are "free" (or close to). But, I have no problem with having a part of my paycheck go to taxes that I do not directly benefit from, for the good of the country. But yeah, I guess I'm a communist.

    64. Re:Wow by hey! · · Score: 1

      Their wrestling is less silly than ours, and we've never had two Sumo yokozuna at the same time.

      Our national ethnic costumes aren't as colorful.

      While some have called us an "empire", our territory is less than 10 million square kilometers. At the peak of the Mongol empire they controlled 33 million square kilometers, and they built it with horses and hand tools (swords).

      Their version of barbecue features vegetables.

      I don't think anybody will be mistaking us for Mongols any time soon.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    65. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors[...]

      Humm... I see... contemporary Latin America history is not a subject in U.S. high schools...

    66. Re:Wow by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations

      Why are they irrelevant, if they exactly mirror the same procedures and motivations today? They serve as good examples of how tearing down an aggressive, murderous thugocracy like Saddam's doesn't happen in one day, and it takes years for the people who lived under such a regime to develop a sustainable, democratic replacement. Which is exactly why Germany and Japan are worth mentioning. Did you think that those countries had viable economies and nice warm and fuzzy, efficient, level-headed governments running immediately after they were decapitated for their beligerant, expansionist, slaughtering ways? Why are you so anxious to ignore history, instead of learn from it? Ah, I see. Because history suggests that appeasing murderous totalitarians has a way of costing millions of lives, and you'd love to ignore that.

      Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?

      Just ask the guys in the patrolling aircraft who were being shot at every week. You know, the patrols that were being flown to keep Saddam from killing hundreds of thousands of more people in the north and south. How? How about with the long range missiles he continued to build? How about with the large stores of nasty stuff like VX that UN inspectors knew to be there, but which were a complete mystery, in terms of their disposition? Saddam's deliberate policy was to make sure that people in Israel and Iran thought he had a large arsenal of viable, ready-to-use WMDs. His conventional forces took a serious spanking when he invaded Kuwait, and he was desparate to be able to project power in non-conventional ways. A hobbled Republican Guard or not, though, it didn't stop them from firing on the very aircraft he agreed to allow to patrol the no-fly zones, and it didn't stop him from making a public display of sending cash to groups sponsoring terrorist bombers and training facilities (on TV, no less!). And of course it didn't stop him from doing international weapons trade with fine partners like North Korea - especially on missle hardware.

      Also along the lines of "with what" - don't forget the millions and millions in cash skimmed off of the Oil For Food program, and used to rebuild his military (and gold plate the doorknobs in more palaces - but that's more of an assault on good taste, despite starving his own people to do it).

      And also along the lines of "how," of course, was the sustained, deliberate obfuscation of weapons destruction records and the blocking of inspectors at every turn. He wasn't just hiding a few things, he was deliberately making it clear that he was hiding things - because he knew that only the knowledge that he had WMDs and the means and willingness to use them could keep him in power.

      Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?

      Nice false dichotomy, there. Regardless: the primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate you seem to prefer (though it's not obvious why you like the way the Taliban treats, say, women who teach their daughters to read) was exactly the sort of spot where Al Queda found a happy home, and trained thousands of busy little bomb builders and murderers. The people trained in that environment are exactly the folks who, through connections in Pakistan, reach out to and recruit/fund the charming guys who do things like blow up train stations in London or Madrid. The dictatorship you see as the only other option doesn't really seem to be a problem in, say, Iraq. Or Turkey. It's actually dangerous dictatorships like Saddams (now gone) or Iran's (now getting crazier by the minute, and building nukes) that are the very reason to support democracy in places like Iraq. Because only the people in Iran can shut down the crazy mullahs who run that theocratic horror show, and they need to see that honest elections and a constitutional democracy can work.

      I'm pretty sure

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    67. Re:Wow by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      "A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?

      Is this a serious question?

    68. Re:Wow by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sweden has a reasonably bloody history, although geography has been a limiting factor in their imperial ambitions. Ironically as we are discussingthe topic of big weapons, during its imperial hey-day Sweden had a mania for heavily armed ships of the line. Sometimes too heavily armed (Q: How to you sink a Swedish ship? A: Put it in the water.).

      They have a racism problem with dark skinned immigrants, although one has to consider that Sweden is a welfare state. I wonder if Sweden's relative lack of ethnic diversity explains their openness to paying for state welfare programs.

      About 40% of Muslims in Sweden have witnessed at least verbal abuse against Muslims, although to be fair the same figure in the US approaches 75%, so having a race and religious bigotry problem is a relative thing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    69. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sniff* I smell a COMMIE among us! GET 'EM! :)

    70. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden would be speaking German today

      That's by the way a fairly common misunderstanding about how these things use to evolve.

      Namely, if Germany had won WW2 the French would still speak French and the Swedish Swedish, much like the countries formerly comprising the Soviet Union still speak their own language. And, much like the Soviet Union, a "Great Germany" which had won the war and conquered that many territories would quite likely have fallen apart as well.

      Also, there's people who believe that instead of German dictatorship covering large parts of Europe WW2 just brought the Soviet variant. I believe it was General Patton who, soon after the war and while staying in Germany, said that "we've fought the wrong people".

    71. Re:Wow by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?

      You mean the same "puppet" regime that has asked us to leave and is busy signing oil deals with China? That's an interesting definition of "puppet" you have.

      Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?

      How about the 2/3rds of it's own population that wasn't Sunni Arab? Or shouldn't we care about them because they are brown?

      Is it better to live in a violent primitive Islamic tribal proconsulate than a stable advanced secular dictatorship?

      I guess that depends on if you are a member of Saddam's tribe or happen to be unlucky enough to be a Shia or Kurd. The women who were kidnapped off the street to be raped probably weren't big fans of the "stable advanced secular dictatorship" either.

      In the real world, it can be evil vs evil.

      If you think the United States represents evil then you need to crack open a history book and/or buy a plane ticket to Burma/North Korea/etc.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    72. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but during WWII, they were "neutral" but really the Social Democrat party in control at that time was gaga over Hitler. Used to have Nazi representatives speak at their rallies (from peons to Goebbels himself). So it was more neutral in name only.
       
        On a side note, one thing I find positively creepy, is that even to this day, the Social Democrat party holds political children's camps. Maybe its just me, but any mainstream party that was gaga over Hitler's Ideology and holds that sort of political themed kids camp just makes me think of Nazi Youth.

    73. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they are definitely a lot better at P.R.

    74. Re:Wow by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago. They were neutral in both world wars.

      If by neutral you mean "allowed Nazi troops to use their railway network to invade the Soviet Union", then yeah, they were "neutral". I have more respect for the Finns then I do for the Swedes -- and the Finns fought on the side of the Axis! At least they were doing what they had to do to defend their country from Stalin. The Swedes were spineless cowards that didn't even have the backbone to enforce their own neutrality and went with whatever direction the wind was blowing.

      One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.

      Pffft, says who? Japan didn't even have the logistical means to occupy Hawaii. You think they had the wherewithal to invade and conquer mainland USA? Give me a fucking break.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    75. Re:Wow by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.

      And if it wasn't for lend-lease the USSR would have been defeated and conquered in 1941. We provided them with everything from war-material to keep the Red Army running to civilian goods that enabled them to convert their entire economy to wartime production. You think the USSR would have survived without the Western Allies? Not really likely.

      Mind you, without the USSR the US and UK would have lost fair more blood and treasure than we did in order to defeat Germany. We were able to fight the war while suffering a minimal (compared to the other combatants) loss of life. In that respect we owe a debt of honor to the Russians -- just don't pretend that we didn't contribute on the Eastern Front and they didn't contribute on the Western. No lend-lease == starving Soviet population and immobile Red Army. No Red Army == millions of American and British KIAs.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    76. Re:Wow by RobVB · · Score: 1

      So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.

      Because if you don't consider them peaceful and civilized, they'll say you have WMDs and KILL YOU.

      --
      I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
    77. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay seriously, enough about the nuclear bombs on cities. Yea, we dropped a whole two and killed an awful lot of people in the process. At the same time, the Emperor of Japan would of ordered every man woman and child to fight against our soldiers. Him being a "god", they would of done so.

      Sometimes the right call is still a bad call. Just be grateful that the absolute horror that resulted because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima managed to terrify the next several presidents into not using them. I just hope that the POTUS, whomever he/she is, never forgets what a terrible weapon they are (though I'm afraid some of them since Eisenhower already have).

    78. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many of those wars and police actions were american and not UN?

      What rampant flaws in our system? Its not perfect but I don't see anybody offering up a better system that actually works.

      The system needs a bit of work but in general it needs some fixes, not a revolution to fix.

    79. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you comparing the US to the Romans or Alexander the Great, adjusted for inflation or something? We've only been around for 200+ years, I think a few ancient empires got us beat for wars and invasion easily.

    80. Re:Wow by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

      Slur writes:
      "A hundred thousand years of human technology, and we're supposed to be impressed at the latest version of the club. Wake me up when the human race does something impressive."

      Reminds me of the scene in 2001 when the flying bone-club segues to the orbital view.

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
    81. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden has started how many wars lately? Attacked how many countries? Threatened? Manipulated internal affairs of?

      Exactly.

      I'm not saying Sweden is all goody (it isn't) but it's not aggressive towards others.

      The US is.

    82. Re:Wow by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized... If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?"

      You contradict yourself. The U.S. had a top income tax rate of between 63% and 94% all the way from 1932 to 1981 (including the WWII period). So by your ridiculous argument, you just proved the U.S. "greatest generation" to be inherently uncivilized.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#History_of_top_rates

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    83. Re:Wow by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Well, from the technology side what I would consider interesting is that this is essentially an Earthquake bomb. The damage is caused by shock waves through the ground rather than through the air, allowing it to damage bunkers over a very large area. It's entirely possible that this bomb will destroy facilities that would be nearly untouched by a nuclear weapon.

      Also interesting, though from a sociopolitical side, this is a bomb with a single military purpose and that is to threaten/destroy the infrastructure needed to produce a nuclear bomb, specifically in countries that are trying to hide or protect those facilities (read: North Korea and Iran). Those are the only targets large enough and valuable enough for the complexity of this weapon to make sense.

    84. Re:Wow by watermodem · · Score: 1

      http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/bios/grove/paranoid.htm Take what Andy Grove said... Replace company/firm etc.. with Nation. Now consider carefully that "they all are out to get us" as even viewpoint in stjobe's comment so clearly expresses... Then to remain and not die of entropy a sucessful country must consider Andy Grove's maxim as well as Sun Tzu's.

    85. Re:Wow by BForrester · · Score: 1

      Blowing up surface targets is rudimentary.
      Blowing things that are underground, or particularly, underground in reinforced bunkers is inherently difficult.
      This bomb will supposedly do the latter 5-10 times more effectively than its precursor.

    86. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...dropped more nuclear bombs on cities...

      That's kinda unfair. I wouldn't have wanted to try to invade Japan, and if those bombs saved the lives of American soldiers. To put it in perspective, the amount of people dead from the direct effects of the bombs are about 220,000 (source). The numbers that the President (Truman) used to make the decision estimate 250,000 - 1,000,000 American deaths (source). Note that this does NOT include the number of Japanese soldiers/civilians killed. Another alternative was to keep firebombing. The deaths from the firebombing was on the order of 500,000, with 5,000,000 more made homeless(source).

    87. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that all depends on how you define "Peaceful and Civilized". If you compare it to the past (not just the last 100 or so years, but history in itself), you'd probably find that most modern nations could be considered "Peaceful and Civilized". Sure, most of them fuck up sometime or another, but for the most part the world *IS* a heck of a lot more "peaceful and civilized" then it once was.

      It also comes down to what your standard of peaceful and civilized is? To me, it's any country that doesn't slaughter it's own populace, and has running water...but I have low standards. Even the Roman Empire could be considered peaceful and civilized (in their time. I think you might have a hard time pulling off the 'peaceful' argument nowadays.).

      So, as to WHY you should consider the U.S. "peaceful and civilized", well no one's going to make you. But I think you're making the country out to be a hell-hole that it just isn't. Now don't get me wrong, there's some weird and wrong shit going on, but by no means are people being slaughtered in the street...

      So yeah, there's my 2 cents of anonymous cowardice!

    88. Re:Wow by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      To be honest, I do not see that much difference between NK and ourselves.

      I have to stop listening to you now.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    89. Re:Wow by Dishevel · · Score: 1
      The healthcare system in the US is first rate. We have and develop the best medical technology on the planet. It is available to all. But sometimes to save your life here in the US you need to go into massive amounts of debit that you will most likely never pay off. Still though for the most part we have that choice. Unlike the old chick in Britain that went blind while the government worked out the cost benefit analysis of not letting the old bitch go blind.

      I would love to have free health care insurance. Just not at the cost of the best health care system in the world.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    90. Re:Wow by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The Russians sat on their asses confident that their "Deal" with Hitler would allow them to stay out of the war while everyone else died. Only when Hitler broke the deal did the Russians "Enter" the war.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    91. Re:Wow by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Switzerland?

      Peaceful in the sense they haven't fought a war in ... many years. Plus they manage to have a gun ownership rate much higher than the US THEREFORE have a much lower rate of gun crime.

      Civilised in the sense that they are an 'advanced' 'western' country.

      I know both are debateable, but if Sweden might count then Switzerland does.

      There. Fixed that for you.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    92. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Is it? How do you figure?

      Theft is uncivilized. The greater the theft, the more uncivilized.

      So, instead of flogging that dead horse, how about you tell us WHY you think the U.S. is entitled to the moniker "peaceful and civilized"?

      Because it's not violent and uncivilized.

      Peaceful it sure isn't

      Yes, it is. As I already proved with "dead horse" references to WWI and especially WWII, being involved in violent acts does not make you violent or un-peaceful. Simply citing "police actions" is not an argument.

      Civilized? Debatable, with the rampant flaws in its electoral system, judicial system and social welfare system.

      Our electoral system is not flawed.

      Our judicial system, while flawed, is less so than any other.

      Our social welfare system is flawed primarily in that it is unconstitutional and anti-liberty: it should be much smaller and legal.

      Murder on the streets, capitalism ensuring the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

      You know, MAKING arguments and MAKING UP arguments are not the same thing. None of that is true.

      Corporate money buying laws, buying politicians

      What are you, 12?

      ... buying all the mom and pop's all over the country

      Not in any way uncivilized.

      Blatant disregard for international treaties ...

      I defy you to name one.

      ... and a will and a way to impose this on unwilling nations all around the globe.

      I defy you to give an example.

      So, tell us WHY the U.S. should be considered "peaceful and civilized", because I sure can't see it.

      You've given no reason to think otherwise.

    93. Re:Wow by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, Pudge taking the flamebait.

      Never seen the /. badge before =)

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    94. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Actually, a 6% taxation rate would be.

      Sure. A 60 percent rate just moreso.

      I don't remember who said it (someone will be able to fill in here), but the grade of civilisation of a nation can be deducted from how it treats its lowest members. Treating the poor well requires money in the pockets of the nation, so it can spend.

      But not in the pockets of GOVERNMENT. I honestly feel sorry for you that you believe that the poor can only be helped by stealing money from other people to give to them.

    95. Re:Wow by delphi125 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.

      Bernard Madoff (Great Merchant) has been born in New York (Dubya).

    96. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside irrelevant examples from previous generations, what on earth did conquering and then setting up a puppet regime in Iraq have to do with "peace"?

      Let's fast-forward form 2004, shall we? Iraq today has a stable, sovereign, and democractically elected government. There is no puppet regime there.

      And it seems to me that what this has to do with peace is entirely self-evident: under Hussein, Iraqis were slaughtered and Iraq's neighbors were being constantly threatened with violence. Now all of that is gone. It's not perfect, of course, but life never is.

      You can say that you don't think it was worth the cost, and that's fine. But to deny the point of creating a more peaceful, free, and prosperous Iraq -- which HAS HAPPENED -- is silly.

      Whose peace? Who was Iraq threatening when it was conquered, how, and with what?

      Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. With mostly conventional weapons, but also with support of terrorism (esp. in Israel's case, including direct support of terrorist bombers, and harboring terrorists like Abu Nidal).

      You do realize, for example, we had troops for 12 years in Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Saudi government, for only one reason: to protect them from Iraq. This was one of the reasons Osama gave for attacking us on 9/11, BTW. And as soon as we overthrew Hussein, we left Saudi Arabia, because the threat was gone.

      And Kuwait gave us a massive new military base in Kuwait in order to protect them from Iraq.

      Look, I'm going to type this reeeeally slowly to make it easy for you to understand: outside of kiddie cartoons ...

      Yawn. You don't even understand what actually happened, and you're lecturing me?

    97. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry but you are just poorly informed, which is not surprising since this issue has been avoided by the media and politicians ever since 1945. Japan has already made several attempts to surrender before the bombs were dropped, and under pretty much the same terms as those that were eventually accepted: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    98. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you dodn't look at the American hardware which was being shipped by the hundreds of tons to Russia. I guess it's imperial of us to pick several wars to stop genocide, stop mad dictators, etc, and then give the fucking country back. Kind of just like the Chinese gave Tibet back, or Germany gave France ... nevermind. Yeah, so we're the only ones willing to take the initiative and do something for freedom and human dignity around the world. I know, you want us to do what we did in Somalia, and run, but fuck you. Fuck your cultural, institutional cowardice.

      "rampant flaws in the electoral system" means "not like ours". I know, our judicial system that gives us a real freedom of speech, instead of just a freedom of groupthink is "flawed". I know our social welfare system is flawed, that's why we've got so many people starving ... wait, nevermind. As for the "don't have healthcare" bullshit? Yeah, anybody can go to the hospital and get treated. And, ironically, the only place that I've gotten the "you have insurance, step to the front of the line" treatment was in Europe. Grece and England, if you really care, but you don't. I guess it's evil that rich people have a chance to create more jobs. We should fix that. And, well, we've got hte honesty to address our race relation problems instead of just muttering under our breath about the damn romanians. Ooops, get off your fucking high horse.

    99. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Proportion" a 20-foot, 30,000-lb bomb

      Yes, that's the idea. Do you have a problem with the math? That size bomb is needed for this sort of application. It is proportional.

      "Perspective" American

      Nope. Historical. The Mongols overran peaceful countries and took them over. The U.S. has NEVER done that. Ever.

      If you think about it carefully, I think you will find that you missed hnangelo's point.

      If you re-read what I wrote, and understand it, then you will find I did not.

    100. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one claims the US was a shining white knight you fucking idiot. Your whole stupid continent managed to find itself in a ridiculous penis-size driven power struggle of epic proportions, twice, and America was dragged into the second one. After you guys successfully made sure that none of you would no longer be relevant on a global scale by destroying each other, America picked up the torch and managed to (go figure!) NOT become an imperial country driven by greed or fascism or colonialism! Then, America was forced to deal with, for the next whatever number of years until now and still going on into the future, every single stupid fucking thing your dumbass continent had fucked up. Like the middle east. And africa. And global poverty. And pretty much everything that's a current problem today which was somehow derived from your stupid continents inability to think two seconds into the future without erupting in war.

      So yeah, America is now in power, you lost your chance and sorry we aren't cleaning up your stupid fucking mess well enough, why don't you try helping? We are a global power because of you and the world is absolute SHIT because of you. So good job, Europe, ya fucked up. It's our turn.

    101. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sorry but you actually lack proportion and especially perspective.

      Yawn.

      Simple facts: US has engaged in more wars, invaded more countries, dropped more nuclear bombs on cities, has more military bases in foreign countries, and in recent years undermined the international order and stability far more than any other country in the world

      * Engaged in more wars, invaded more countries: most of those coming to the aid of people who were being invaded or attacked, so you're mixing apples and oranges. Most people think what we did in WWI and WWII and the Gulf War and other wars were GOOD things.

      And even Iraq was intended to be for the benefit of Iraq and the Middle East. Our greatest stains of imperialism are in Vietnam and Central America, and I won't defend those; and to some degree, we did the same nonsense in the Middle East, which lead to where we were in 2002. But while those were root causes for where we were in 2002, they were not reasons why we did what we did in 2003.

      * Dropped more nuclear bombs: and in doing so, saved countless lives.

      * Has more military bases in foreign countries: always at the request of those countries (unless there's still some bases I am forgetting about as the result of postwar treaties)

      * Undermined international order and stability: says you. I think we're much more stable in the long run. Less order, perhaps, but when that order is represented by the United Nations telling Iraq "if you violate Resolution 687 we'll force you to comply" for 12 years, and in the end refuses to act ... that is an order we can do without.

      But a peaceful nation who refuses to exercise any semblance of imperialism!?

      Shrug. We are not taking over nations to expand our influence (though we did try this in the Cold War and in Central America, it's really not happening today). Today there's a sort of "new imperialism" where we try to control more of the world through politics and economics (and, to a lesser degree, culture) ... though this is hardly new, since it was practiced by France and Britain for centuries. But it's not the sort of thing you appear to be referring to.

    102. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.

      Well, no, that's not serious. Barbarians in fact did that, although their counting method was imprecise. They walked through and took what they wanted, for whatever reason they decided ... just as today's socialists do.

    103. Re:Wow by bartwol · · Score: 1

      Sweden currently as troops in Afghanistan helping with the "war on terror." And you say what? While I believe that to be a "just" cause, I have no illusions about how varied and competitive are our definitions of justice. My just war does wreak misery and death upon innocent victims. If you would shed some of your own illusions, it might take some of that false shine off of Sweden. Anyway, I'll assume that you are an American at heart, and know that at least my enemies fully agree with me on that much.

    104. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors.

      Sorry, but you are wrong.

      No, I am not.

      First, I noted in another comment that in Central America we have done that sort of thing. But more importantly, this is nothing like the mongols, where they invaded peaceful countries and just took them over to take their resources, their people, their property, their liberty. We've NEVER done that. In every case we've either invaded an aggressor, or we've picked sides in an internal conflict in order to expand our political influence, but not to steal from the countries, and not to ever attack peaceful countries. That doesn't justify everything we did, but to compare it to mongols is just nonsense.

      Or better yet, pick up a copy of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.

      /me throws up in his own mouth

    105. Re:Wow by jacob1984 · · Score: 1

      True, but remember that you could also attribute a portion of that victory to US supplies. You may have not seen a GI, but you did see American food, Jeeps, Dodges, Fords, Chevy's and weapons.

    106. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      You contradict yourself.

      No, I do not.

      The U.S. had a top income tax rate of between 63% and 94% all the way from 1932 to 1981

      And it was uncivilized. And including state and local taxes, many places -- mostly CA and NY -- are up around 60 percent now. And it is uncivilized.

      So by your ridiculous argument, you just proved the U.S. "greatest generation" to be inherently uncivilized.

      I never said -- and never would have said, or implied, or meant -- that Sweden was uncivilized. I said its 60 percent tax rate is uncivilized.

    107. Re:Wow by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I think you will have a very heard time convincing an American that paid taxes are *not* something you lose.

      They are something you lose, even in Sweden. You lose the choice of what to spend your money on, and even if the choices others make for you sometimes happen to coincide with what you would have spent it on, they rarely match exactly.

      But, I have no problem with having a part of my paycheck go to taxes that I do not directly benefit from, for the good of the country. But yeah, I guess I'm a communist.

      But what about those who do have a problem with it? Can they opt out without going to jail? By the way, what is to stop you from giving money for the benefit of others and for the good of the country *voluntarily*? Why do you have to be forced by law to do so and why do you want to force other people to do so as well even if they don't want to?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    108. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Aren't you yanks tired of trotting that argument out every time speaks ill of the US, The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine

      Nothing I said denied that.

      ... but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.

      Yeah, only because AFTER the war Russia oppressed half of Europe for decades. It's hard to say "you should thank us for saving you from Germany in WWII" after the atrocities inflicted across Eastern Europe in the wake of WWII.

      The US needs to have a world war on their own doorstep before their gung ho attitude dies.

      60% tax uncivilised
      Torture civilised

      Can you see what is wrong here?

      Yep, a lot. First, you seem to be inviting a war. That's bad. Second, you implicitly accuse me of supporting torture, or believing it is civilized. That's false. Third, you give no reason to think a 60 percent tax is NOT uncivilized, and you just throw it out there as if anyone should believe it. (Granted, I didn't go into detail either, but you asked what's wrong and I am trying to be thorough.)

      I could go on, I think. But that's the bulk of what's wrong there.

    109. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Depends. Considering USians can spend that much on healthcare and education, there's not really much difference. They take it away from you one way or another.

      No, they don't. In one case it is voluntary, and in another, it's forced. That IS the difference, and it's a huge one.

      Last war Sweden was involved in was 200 years ago.

      You really think Germany would have stopped without being forced to? Or the USSR? Come on.

      One could equally well argue that if it wasnt for the UK and the Commonwealth fighting Japan you guys would be speaking Japanese.

      Not really, no. Not at all.

      You need to get out of the US and see the world. Or even get out of your white middle class lifestyle and look at the US.

      You need to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem.

      Whilst you guys are developing superweapons your literacy rates are 3rd world poor in many areas.

      I have no idea what you think this has to do with anything. Are you one of those people who believes we should spend money on education instead of weapons? Despite the fact that there is no significant link between increased funding, and increased performance, in schools? (Washington DC has the worst schools and spends more than any other area on education.) It's nonsense: our schools suck solely because of cultural reasons, not financial reasons.

      Your healthcare system is the worst in the western world.

      No, it's not. In fact, it's among the best. The stats you are looking at do not measure the quality of the health care system, but the relative health of the people. Those are not the same thing, for two big reasons: the free choices of the people that lead to bad health even within a good health care system, and the poor health of people NOT IN the system.

      It's self-evidently true that the health care system sucks for people who aren't in it, but for people who are, it's among the best in the world.

      You economy belongs to China.

      No, it doesn't. I know it's a cute tagline for people to spew, but there's no serious truth to it.

    110. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Ehh, why?

      Because it is theft, usually. It depends on how the money is used, but a 60 percent tax rate always represents theft.

      Is it wrong for your neighbor to break into your home and take your money and property to improve his own home? Of course. So why is it OK if your neighborhood gets together and VOTES to do that? It's still just as wrong, and completely uncivilized.

      I am not against taxes. I am against government taking money from one person to give it to another, to force a "sharing" of wealth. When my taxes are taken in order to make sure government can run effectively to perform its duty to secure my rights to life, liberty, and property, then that's good. When it is for other purposes, it's theft.

      Do you have any idea what the public services in Sweden are like? No road tolls, free health care and education up to the university level, social services etc. With less taxes, there are less services, which means you need to spend more money to get the same services. The end result is that the poor are left to rot. How is avoiding that uncivilized?

      First, let's point out the fact that you're wrong: like many socialists, you falsely believe that if government doesn't help poor people, then no one will. I shouldn't have to expand on this point.

      Second, nothing is more important than liberty, except life itself. Public services paid for by theft are not justified just because you like them.

    111. Re:Wow by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      You really live in one hell of a dream world. Where do I sign up? My image of you is a fat man blissfully stuffing cheeseburgers in his mouth while laughing as the children across the street slip and fall, then get sprayed by a sprinkler.

      I'm not even bothering to respond to your entire post, except to point out some quick counter examples that you so hilariously demand, as if making some brilliant argument in which you'll come out on top:

      Blatent disregard for international treaties: Torturing (waterboarding, sleep deprevation, etc) is clearly banned by the Geneva conventions and yet the US did it anyway.
      Imposing its will on nations around the globe: Installing the Shah in Iran, assassinations in Latin America, assassination of Patrice Lumumba in Congo (US is generally thought to have been at least complicit) to name a few. The list goes on and on all over the world.

      And note that I'm not suggesting other countries don't do these things too, but people in the US have to stop pretending they are so morally superior when, in fact, their country is hardly a model citizen on the world stage.

    112. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Theft is uncivilized. The greater the theft, the more uncivilized.

      Tax is theft now? Let me paraphrase Charles Babbage: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a statement."

      I know I shouldn't ask, but what the hell: How on earth can you construe tax as being theft?

      Because it's not violent and uncivilized.

      That is debatable, to say the least.

      Yes, it is. As I already proved with "dead horse" references to WWI and especially WWII, being involved in violent acts does not make you violent or un-peaceful. Simply citing "police actions" is not an argument.

      You haven't "proved" anything, other than your ability to (wilfully, I'll presume) misunderstand arguments and troll the very forums you help develop. Of course being involved in violent acts makes you violent, what other definition of "violent" can there be?

      Our electoral system is not flawed.

      Well, I and many others disagree. I'm sure a smart guy like you can type the words "US electoral system flawed" into google and educate yourself a bit.

      Our judicial system, while flawed, is less so than any other.

      Geez, you really are trolling, aren't you? Just exchange the word "judicial" for "electoral" in that google search and do some reading. Oh, and a country that still enforces the death penalty can't be said to have a civilized judicial system.

      Our social welfare system is flawed primarily in that it is unconstitutional and anti-liberty: it should be much smaller and legal.

      No, your social welfare system is flawed primarily because it's designed to exclude people, not include them.

      I defy you to name one [international treaty the U.S. has violated].

      The Geneva Convention, ever heard of it? That's just one. Remember that google thing I told you about? Try searching for "us convention violated", you might actually learn something.

      I defy you to give an example.

      I'm sure you've at least skimmed through these posts here, but let me just say South and Central America. I'm sure you can figure the rest out.

      Jeez, what has slashdot come to these days when even the employees are trolling? Well, I'm done feeding this here troll.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    113. Re:Wow by swillden · · Score: 1

      Pffft, says who? Japan didn't even have the logistical means to occupy Hawaii. You think they had the wherewithal to invade and conquer mainland USA? Give me a fucking break.

      Though the quote is apocryphal, Admiral Yamamoto's supposed utterance -- "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass" -- is absolutely correct, at least for any level of forces that Japan could have brought to bear. The US was still largely rural in the 1940s, and outside of the cities every household had a rifle (or five), and knew how to use them, including the women and even children. There's simply no way Japan could have hoped to have any success at invading the US.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    114. Re:Wow by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      It's certainly not the U.S., what with all the wars it's been involved in in just the last century.

      Perhaps you could provide a list of wars started by the U.S. in the last century?

    115. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Sure, here's an off-the-top-of-my-head list of countries you've started wars with in the last 50 years or so:

      Nicaragua
      Guatemala
      The Dominican Republic
      Grenada
      Panama

      And of course Iraq.

      Note that you've probably not called them wars in your domestic news, but instead "police actions", "regime change" and the like, but a rose by any other name...

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    116. Re:Wow by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace. It ain't a perfect nation, but it's a damned good one.--

      You are forgetting about when the British Empire was in charge. Africa may have their freedom now, but most of them had a higher standard of living than they do now. There are very few of their colonies that are actually doing better without them. A lot of them are still in the commonwealth.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

      Of course we wouldn't be as powerful as we are without their help. So I'm not too sure about the US having the title "World's Greatest Superpower". The British Empire I think could claim that. Maybe we would end up #2 of all time even in the playing fair category.

    117. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the whole "Who won WWII?", it certainly ended a lot sooner than with either of us missing, but please look at the difference between East Germany and West Germany. I'd say we deserve a lot more credit for our part than the Russians for theirs.

      60% tax on your own citizens: uncivilized
      Torture on foreigners: civilized

      There's a huge difference between nationalism and imperialism, and us Yankees (and southerners who'd reject that label) go long on the former, light on the latter. So we'd say nothing is wrong here.

      Don't get me wrong; I think we do meddle too much overseas, but I'm also an unapologetic nationalist, so my gung ho attitude isn't about to die.

    118. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      Ehh, why?

      Because it is theft, usually.

      If you look at it that way, then a 10% tax rate is just as much theft. As is a 1% tax rate. Theft doesn't stop being theft just because you steal a little bit less.

      I am not against taxes. I am against government taking money from one person to give it to another

      All taxes take money from one person and give it to another. That is what taxes are. You are being logically inconsistent.

      you falsely believe that if government doesn't help poor people, then no one will.

      History is rife with examples, many different times, many different places, of no one helping the poor when the government didn't.

    119. Re:Wow by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You sound a lot like Glen Beck. In the past 60 years, the US has done a lot of overrunning Mongol villages.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    120. Re:Wow by tibman · · Score: 1

      The US has pretty much always been fighting someone, i agree. But can you imagine a world where the US military sat entirely within the confines of the US Borders?

      The World Wars are a good example of the US military powers being used in a good way. In both World Wars the US had to stretch supply lines incredibly far, having many bases dotting the world is excellent planning for a future world war, imo. But the US doesn't occupy or lord over other counties like some kind of fiefdom.

      In many ways i think the smaller conflicts the US becomes involved in are to maintain the global Status Quo. The spice must flow! right? I have no doubt that if all nations kept thier borders and governments maintained good internal order, and the global economy was stable... why would the US military ever need to deploy?

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    121. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blatant disregard for international treaties ...

      I defy you to name one.

      The North American Free Trade Agreement.

      The Free Trade Agreement.

      The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

      The Marrakesh Agreement. (WTO)

      That's four easy ones off the top of my head. (OK, I had to look up the name for the WTO agreement.)

      That's just some of the treaties that the USA has broken with just one country. That's how the USA treats its friends.

    122. Re:Wow by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --The USSR did far more than the US in defeating the German war machine but I have never heard a Russian use that argument.--

      How do you mean? In what way? In lives, maybe. I speak ill of the US all the time but not over WWII. In fact we helped the Russians out a lot. We fought an undeclared war before Pearl Harbor in the Atlantic trying to supply the UK. A lot of our merchant ships were sunk. Who do you think escorted them once they were close to Canada? Did you know when Poland was invaded, the Russians helped the Germans and divided it up by treaty? Hitler then double crossed Stalin later on. The Russians would not have beat Germany on their own. Most of our guys were lost on bombing missions. The Russians didn't have any strategic bombers. BTW we have had a war on our doorstep. It's called the Civil War.

      If you live in the UK AC, then think about it. Yeah the Russians lost more men and materials, because of the way they fought. They wanted Berlin for themselves to attack so the US and UK said sure. I wonder how many Russians were lost in that battle? We may never know. The Russians would do mass attacks. Luckily enough people lived in Russia for these tactics to work. Most of our commanders never did that if there was another way and we didn't line up all of our artillery in rows. If they took counter battery fire then they would loose it all. We could concentrate fire to one location from several different spots by using a radio. The Germans have always been the masters of defensive warfare. We lost only one battle to the Germans while fighting Japan at the same time. The Russians didn't even fight the Japanese until the war was really over. They thought that they could gain a little territory there. I believe they did and it is called China. We had to cross oceans to fight. The Russians didn't. Sure we had it easier. So?

      I don't know what the argument was, but your statement is somewhat misleading.

      --60% tax uncivilised
      Torture civilised--

      No both are uncivilized because 60% tax IS torture. Most Americans do not believe in torture. It usually gets you bad information in a military sense as well. We have some of the dumbest people in the English speaking world here and some of the smartest too. A lot of people criticize us for nuking Japan. What would you had us do playing Monday morning quarterback? What else could we have done? Invaded them and killed them to the last man? We pretty much had to do that everywhere we fought them. While the Germans were masters of defensive warfare, the Japanese hid in holes, everyone of which had to be cleared one by one. Their tactics weren't better but they wouldn't surrender. The last guy would walk out with his hands up to surrender after he swallowed a grenade with a smile on his face. So even we had to violate the rules of war there. A lot of units just wouldn't take prisoners. It was not like they didn't want to at first, but after getting a few of your own guys blown up by doing so, you tend to just shoot them whether they wave the white flag or not. Most of those wars started in Europe, so don't blame us for it.

    123. Re:Wow by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I believe they were neutral during WWII but the US was using 40mm Bofors licensed from Sweden.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bofors_40_mm

      The human race as a whole may not be civilized. The Russians held at Stalingrad and Moscow, but only just. In reality, it took the whole world to beat the axis. Without the help of the US that claim can be made. Without the Russians it could also be made I guess.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_convoys_of_World_War_II

    124. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Well, this 60% tax thing is getting out of hand, so I thought I'd just educate you a bit about Swedish taxes.

      I don't pay 60% in tax, I pay about half that (29.33%).

      The Swedish progressive income tax system works like this:

      On income below 367 600 SEK ($51 378) yearly, you pay about 30% tax (in my case 29.33, of which 17% is municipal tax, 12% is county council tax, and 0.11% is a burial fee - those that are members of the Church of Sweden also pay 0.29% in church tax, but I am not a member so I'm exempt from that).

      On income between 367600 SEK and 526200 SEK ($73 546) yearly, a 20% state tax is added for the amount above 367600 SEK.
      On income above 526200 SEK yearly, the state tax is 25% on the amount exceeding 526200 SEK

      So, if I earned say, 600000 SEK, I would then pay 29.33% on the first 367600 SEK, which is 107817 SEK.
      The next 158600 SEK would be taxed with 49.33%, which is 78237 SEK
      The last 73800 SEK would be taxed with 54.33%, which is 40096 SEK.
      I would then have paid 226150 SEK in taxes, which is an effective tax rate of 37.7%

      If I earn (or at least have a taxable income after deductions and the like) of 367599 SEK or less, I would pay 29.33% tax.

      The average yearly income in Sweden is 309600 SEK ($43 272), so most people actually end up paying around 30% in taxes, not 60%.

      Figures are fiscal year 2009 except average income which is 2007. Sources include www.scb.se (Statistics Sweden) and www.skatteverket.se (Swedish Tax Agency).

      Thank you for your time.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    125. Re:Wow by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      The world's greatest superpower who has nevertheless continually refused to exercise any semblance of the imperialism of its predecessors. Germany, Japan, Iraq, and more are all testaments to the devotion our country has to peace.

      Err, those are precisely the very examples of US Imperialism. The Empire is sustained by its culture and commerce. Military power servers to expand the influence and enforce the compliance of the conquered nations to US-centred commercial and cultural dominance. Do you think it is a coincidence that all of these conquered countries do, or are expected to (in case of Iraq), follow precisely a US-elite-friendly model of law and commerce? Is it a coincidence that they are all expected (and did so) to replace in large degree their own culture with US imports? Who could even imagine nation-wide, state-approved Christmas celebrations is Japan before WWII?! This is what empires always did to the conquered, they homogenize them to the dominant Empire standard. In this US is no different from the Roman Empire.

      As to "peace", ignoring the fact that US has, since WWII, unilaterally started multiple wars with millions of civilian casualties, the Roman Emperors also spoke of "peace" ... 'Pax Romana' it was called. Romans had even inscribed "peace given to the world" on their medals. Little wonder then that US, like Rome, was so fond of slavery throughout its history, and even now is still one of the most bigoted nations on Earth, complete with hordes of powerful religious lunatics no different, other than the god they pray to, from those of the Taliban.

    126. Re:Wow by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Seriously, it's pretty fucking hard to get that kind of tax system going without a civilization! You need a whole city full of accountants... barbarians could never manage that.

      Well, no, that's not serious. Barbarians in fact did that, although their counting method was imprecise. They walked through and took what they wanted

      That's 100% taxation, MUCH easier to calculate ;-)
      They also burned the rest, to make sure it was a whole hundred.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    127. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      You really live in one hell of a dream world. ... My image of you is a fat man blissfully stuffing cheeseburgers in his mouth while laughing as the children across the street slip and fall, then get sprayed by a sprinkler.

      Yawn. You're the one in the dream world.

      Far from me being one to laugh at children across the street who need help, I am criticizing people who would NOT help, but instead would just call the police to come help.

      Torturing (waterboarding, sleep deprevation, etc) is clearly banned by the Geneva conventions

      In fact, you're wrong. The Geneva Conventions does not define either of those things as torture, and it is up to the member states to come up with their own definitions. Many people go to this, but the international law in question is not what you say it is.

      Imposing its will on nations around the globe: Installing the Shah in Iran, assassinations in Latin America, assassination of Patrice Lumumba in Congo (US is generally thought to have been at least complicit) to name a few. The list goes on and on all over the world.

      In EVERY ONE of those examples, we were working WITH significant factions within those countries. I asked for examples of imposing our will on "unwilling nations."
       

    128. Re:Wow by qmaqdk · · Score: 1

      ... A peaceful and civilized nation needs to keep the biggest and best weapons on hand, else they be overrun by mongols (figuratively).

      And to which peaceful nation are you referring?

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
    129. Re:Wow by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Depending on how loosely you want to define 'overrunning' and 'peaceful', our methods of acquiring California, Texas, and Hawaii may count (all were mostly perpetrated by civilians).
      You're right though: We generally haven't kept territory that we could have. The Philippines, Japan, Central America, possibly some chunks of post-WWII Europe if we insisted (West Germany)...

    130. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Err, those are precisely the very examples of US Imperialism.

      Err, they are fundamentally different, in positive ways, from the previously referenced mongols, such that there's no serious comparison.

      Military power servers to expand the influence and enforce the compliance of the conquered nations to US-centred commercial and cultural dominance.

      OK. But you are arguing against youself, because that never happened.

      Do you think it is a coincidence that all of these conquered countries do, or are expected to (in case of Iraq), follow precisely a US-elite-friendly model of law and commerce?

      Ummmm. Dude. Japan attacked us. Germany attacked our allies. Iraq attacked us and our allies and violated treaties and threatened more attacks. These countries violated international law, we beat them, and when they lost they made concessions. That is almost completely unrelated to anything the mongols did.

      Is it a coincidence that they are all expected (and did so) to replace in large degree their own culture with US imports?

      That never happened, in fact.

      As to "peace", ignoring the fact that US has, since WWII, unilaterally started multiple wars with millions of civilian casualties

      That never happened, in fact. Which wars are you referring to? Vietnam, which the U.S. had no hand in starting? Iraq, which was not started unilaterally, and began in 1991 with the act of the United Nations? (Hostilities resumed in 2003, but was, legally, a continuation of the first Gulf War ... but even if you pick 2003 as the starting date, it still wasn't unilateral.)

      the Roman Emperors also spoke of "peace" ... 'Pax Romana' it was called. Romans had even inscribed "peace given to the world" on their medals.

      And if the U.S. subscribed to this, as you claim, we would today be in control of Iraq. We are not.

      Little wonder then that US, like Rome, was so fond of slavery throughout its history

      That's false, in fact. Far from being throughout our history, it is a minority of our history. It lasted less than 100 years in the U.S. as an independent nation that's lasted over 230 years. If you include the colonial period, it was just over 200 years, which is a little more than half of the nearly 400 years since then.

      ... and even now is still one of the most bigoted nations on Earth

      Nonsense. You must not get around much. There's far more bigotry in most of Asia and Africa than in the U.S. ... and much of Europe too. Even in the most racist parts of our country, for example, most people would be absolutely aghast at the racist slurs directed at black players in some Champions League games.

      ... complete with hordes of powerful religious lunatics no different, other than the god they pray to, from those of the Taliban.

      Again, you just have no clue what you're talking about.

      Your nickname suits you.

    131. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Tax is theft now?

      When used to, for example, redistribute wealth ... yes, it is. Always has been.

      I know I shouldn't ask, but what the hell: How on earth can you construe tax as being theft?

      How could taxing for the purposes of redistributing wealth NOT be theft? It's mine. My property that I have a right to. You take it from me by force and against my will. You hand it to someone else. What about that isn't theft?

      Because it's not violent and uncivilized.

      That is debatable, to say the least.

      Yes, it is. As I already proved with "dead horse" references to WWI and especially WWII, being involved in violent acts does not make you violent or un-peaceful. Simply citing "police actions" is not an argument.

      You haven't "proved" anything ...

      If you really think our efforts in WWI and WWII, in defending ourselves and our allies from what everyone agrees were essentially unprovoked hostile invasions, are evidence of being "violent and uncivilized," then I have little to say to you.

      Of course being involved in violent acts makes you violent

      False.

      ... what other definition of "violent" can there be?

      Being PRONE to violence. Lying doesn't make you a liar. Doing it habitually does. A man of peace can use violence to defend the defenseless from attack.

      Our electoral system is not flawed.

      Well, I and many others disagree.

      Wow, you convinced me! What a great argument!

      Our judicial system, while flawed, is less so than any other.

      Geez, you really are trolling, aren't you?

      Once again, you convinced me! Great job!

      Oh, and a country that still enforces the death penalty can't be said to have a civilized judicial system.

      False. There's nothing uncivilized about the death penalty. It could be uncivilized in its means and methods and so on, but not in and of itself.

      No, your social welfare system is flawed primarily because it's designed to exclude people, not include them.

      That's not a bug, that's a feature. A damned good one.

      I defy you to name one [international treaty the U.S. has violated].

      The Geneva Convention

      We never violated it, in fact.

    132. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The average yearly income in Sweden is 309600 SEK ($43 272), so most people actually end up paying around 30% in taxes, not 60%.

      Shrug. I never implied otherwise. I'm sure your numbers are quite accurate, but they have nothing to do with me or what I wrote.

    133. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      If you look at it that way, then a 10% tax rate is just as much theft.

      No. First, obviously, it is less. Because ... it is less. Not much explanation needed there. I know you mean that definitionally it falls under "theft" just as much, and that is true, depending on the object of the spending.

      As I noted in other comments, what makes it theft is what you spend it on. If you take from me what is necessary to secure my rights to life, liberty, and property, that is not theft. If you take from me to give it to someone else who doesn't have it, then that is.

      A 10 percent tax rate might possibly cover just those essentials. I doubt it, but it is possible. A 60 percent tax rate certainly will not.

      All taxes take money from one person and give it to another.

      No. You misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say "take from one person and buy goods and services with it for the community," I said "give it to another." As in, "this $100 was yours, now it's Bob's." It's not payment for goods and services, it's just ... a gift, basically.

      you falsely believe that if government doesn't help poor people, then no one will.

      History is rife with examples, many different times, many different places, of no one helping the poor when the government didn't.

      Only when there were not enough people TO help, or when the government prevented people from helping. When almost everyone is poor, then yes, you won't see much private charity. Duh.

      Worse is that government "charity" (a misnomer since charity, by definition, cannot be forced) significantly reduces the amount of private charity.

    134. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The North American Free Trade Agreement.

      The Free Trade Agreement.

      The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

      The Marrakesh Agreement. (WTO)

      I already mentioned trade agreements, which EVERY country violates (Canada has violated NAFTA on timber and other issues, for example). These things are complex agreements that it's really impossible for a large country to NOT violate.

      What is important is not whether a trade agreement is violated, but whether the country submits to a dispute settlement against it. And the U.S. has done so. So those are poor examples.

      It's like saying a football player is a cheater because he committed pass interference. The system is set up such that such violations will occur, but then you have remedies to deal with it.

      Completely unlike this is the Geneva Conventions and the ABM Treaty, where if you violate them, you ARE cheating.

    135. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >60% tax uncivilised
      >Torture civilised

      >Can you see what is wrong here?

      Yes: your assumptions are wrong here. 60% tax rate is effing economic slavery, like government owns your ass. The fact that stupid Swedes like it does not change the fact that it is slavery.

      Legal torture: well in times of distress democracy has the nasty tendency of dropping the principles it loves, that kind of thing. Not much to see here really. And it's a joke, not a real torture like it was historically practiced. Doesn't matter.

    136. Re:Wow by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Apostrophes, spelling errors and serious grammar problems. If the US is in charge, the standards sure have dropped.

      Also, posting AC with your inaccurate and "patriotic" rant really just makes you look silly.

    137. Re:Wow by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree. The course of the war was shortened enormously by the Atlantic supply lines and the involvement of US forces in Western Europe. It's just that most os the time when the whole "we saved your butts in WW2" thing is trotted out, it's painted somehow that we were all totally helpless like lambs in a fox den whimpering "oh if only the mighty US would come and save us" when it really wasn't anything like that.

    138. Re:Wow by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, no one is forcing anyone to live in Sweden, so if you don't like it, I would suggest that you find somewhere else to live. Sweden's government is fairly popular with the people it serves, so what's your big problem with people choosing to live under a system that works for them?

    139. Re:Wow by dcam · · Score: 1

      Nope. Historical. The Mongols overran peaceful countries and took them over. The U.S. has NEVER done that. Ever.

      BS. The US is the democracy country to ever invade a peaceful democracy. Dominican Republic.

      --
      meh
    140. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From the American commander of AonoymousCoward company:

      Nuts

    141. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't. But comparing the U.S. to any one other smaller nation isn't proper perspective. It is just too big. Comparing it to, say, all of Europe would be more appropriate. Seeing as Europe is responsible for a longer history of torture, the holocaust, all world wars ever, biological and chemical weapons, and other human rights violations; yes it does seem more peaceful and civilized.

    142. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      And what did it cost the USSR? How long had they been ramping up? I'm not much for patriotism, but I will say the US can ramp up a monstrous war machine on very short notice when it has to.

    143. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Oh god. I wish people would quit trotting up make-believe numbers like incomparably calculated infant mortality rates. Other countries don't use the same metrics as the US. US health care is undeniably the best in the world, it's not even close. The reason we score low is because the poor don't get access to all that good shit like the middle and upper class.

      As for education level and other useless "development metrics", come back when Sweden isn't a tiny little pissant country with a population a fraction the size of California.

    144. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Ahahaha. That's some sweet newthink there.

      Anyone who doesn't think a 60% tax burden is peachy keen is a much dreaded "libertarian". Nice one.

    145. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Help your neighbors is easy to say when you've got a small population in a largely homogenous society. That's what dipshits who harp on how excellent everything is in these enlightened European havens seem to miss. The US is a large country, we actually have population growth largely in the impoverished segments of society. The number of free-loaders and baby-factories in our country outnumber the entire populations of most European countries. The math doesn't work.

      Personally I think Sweden should take on a few million refugees from Darfur or any other impoverished or war torn region. Then they can come tell us how peachy keen "helping your neighbors" is.

    146. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The US is the democracy country to ever invade a peaceful democracy. Dominican Republic.

      Um, no, that happened during a Civil War.

    147. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      Sweden's government is fairly popular with the people it serves ...

      That doesn't make it right. There are principles higher than democracy; namely, the rights to life and liberty and property.

    148. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      The average yearly income in Sweden is 309600 SEK ($43 272), so most people actually end up paying around 30% in taxes, not 60%.

      Shrug. I never implied otherwise. I'm sure your numbers are quite accurate, but they have nothing to do with me or what I wrote.

      Dishonest. You wrote "A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized", implying that that's what people in Sweden pay in taxes, and that therefore Sweden wasn't a good example of a civilized country.

      Not that I ever argued it is. My main point was that the U.S. certainly isn't the "peaceful and civilized" nation Toonol made it out to be.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    149. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      US health care is undeniably the best in the world, it's not even close.

      The WHO disagrees:

      The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as
      * the highest in cost,
      * first in responsiveness,
      * 37th in overall performance,
      * and 72nd by overall level of health
      (among 191 member nations included in the study).

      A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries. However, the U.S. also has higher survival rates than most other countries for certain conditions, such as some less common cancers. Yet, the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than all other developed countries. According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of assurance).
      (source)

      The reason we score low is because the poor don't get access to all that good shit like the middle and upper class.

      Sooo.... What good is having "undeniably the best" healthcare in the world if I'm unable to get access to it?

      As for education level and other useless "development metrics", come back when Sweden isn't a tiny little pissant country with a population a fraction the size of California.

      You are a perfect example of why education level isn't a useless development metric. If you'd had better education, maybe you wouldn't have to resort to these kind of ad hominem attacks when your reasoning fails you.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    150. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The average yearly income in Sweden is 309600 SEK ($43 272), so most people actually end up paying around 30% in taxes, not 60%.

      Shrug. I never implied otherwise. I'm sure your numbers are quite accurate, but they have nothing to do with me or what I wrote.

      Dishonest.

      Nonsense. Just because you either can't read, or make unwarranted assumptions, does not mean I am dishonest.

      You wrote "A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized", implying that that's what people in Sweden pay in taxes ...

      No. You are reading something that is neither in the words, nor in my intent for those words. I implied that's what SOME people in Sweden pay in taxes, which is true. There was no implication of any sort that everyone does so, or that the average Swede does.

    151. Re:Wow by stjobe · · Score: 1

      Here's the first three lines of your post:

      "A peaceful and civilized nation"? Is there any nation fitting that description anywhere?

      Sweden, maybe.

      A 60 percent taxation rate is uncivilized.

      If you're seriously saying that wasn't meant to imply that Sweden has a 60% taxation rate, I think you need to work a bit on your writing.

      Where do you imply that it's just some people that pay that level of taxes? Nowhere. It's no good backpedaling now that you've been proved wrong.

      You exaggerated for effect (no harm in that), but you need to just acknowledge that and move on, and not try to cover your behind by claiming you meant something you didn't write. Doing that just makes you seem dishonest.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    152. Re:Wow by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      I wish people would quit trotting up make-believe numbers like incomparably calculated infant mortality rates.

      These are not make belive, they are official statistics.

      Other countries don't use the same metrics as the US.

      "Infant mortality rate" seems to be quite clear. Why should you Americans use metrics that make you look worse than the others?

      US health care is undeniably the best in the world, it's not even close. The reason we score low is because the poor don't get access to all that good shit like the middle and upper class.

      How can you contradict yourself in the same paragraph with so much conviction?

      As for education level and other useless "development metrics"

      I guess they useless only because you don't like them. If you want to rationalise your way out of this argument, you need a lot more ability.

    153. Re:Wow by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Err, they are fundamentally different, in positive ways, from the previously referenced mongols, such that there's no serious comparison

      The fundamental goal of empire building is control and dominance. So no difference other then in tactics.

      But you are arguing against youself, because that never happened.

      Right, that is why all of the nations mentioned are sporting economic and political structures oh-so hostile to the US interests ....

      Then there is of course the long list of tyrants and dictators installed with US help to facilitate "friendly" to US economic elites behaviour in nations not directly overrun by US forces.

      Oh, and that wee thing with military installations in nearly 70 countries and endless attempts to expand that network.

      I could go on but history lessons are probably quite lost on people who are so wilfully blind as you.

      Japan attacked us. Germany attacked our allies ...

      Which is often the case with competing empires. They attack each other. You should also remember that in case of Japan, they were pretty much forced to act after US managed to cut off their fuel supply. I think I already mentioned something about economic dominions.

      Iraq attacked us and our allies and violated treaties and threatened more attacks

      WTF?! Iraq attacked the US?! What sort of alternative Universe do you inhabit?! In this Universe however Iraq waged a war with Iran, on US behest and with US supplies of WMDs to use on the Iranians, subsequently to which Iraq invaded Kuwait (with a deceitful US "approval" given by US ambassador to US-allied Iraq at the time). At no time did Iraq attack the US. In fact the US and Britan by themselves (without any UN backing) established self-serving "no fly zones" after 1991 Gulf War, completely violating Iraq's sovereignty, following which they claimed that Iraqis firing at the US planes were somehow "attacking" the US (over Iraq's own territory). "Imperial Hubris" doesn't even begin to describe this attitude.

      As to treaties, what treaties precisely? Maybe you mean UN resolutions?! If that is the reason for US invasion then Israel should have been chock-full of US troops bringing "democracy" and "freedom" there twice over, since by 2003 it has violated two times as many UN resolutions as Iraq had (Iraq = 69, Israel = 138). Not to mention that the final UN resolution 1441 before 2003 invasion did not endorse military action (which can be easily seen when compared to the equivalent UN resolution 679 in 1990). Which is also why the Iraqi invasion was no less a violation of international law than that of Iraq invading Kuwait. But then again the laws are for "little people", US being exempt, for "our own good", naturally.

      Did I mention Imperial Hubris?

      These countries violated international law, we beat them, and when they lost they made concessions. That is almost completely unrelated to anything the mongols did.

      In the light of the above stellar commitment to "international law" (i.e. ignore it when US is involved and sternly apply it to everyone else) this line must surely be an attempt at comedy.

      That never happened, in fact.

      Right, that is why you can point to many examples where one of these US dominated counties sports an economic system other then capitalism modelled after the US template or the local populace does not learn English as a compulsory subject in elementary or high school. I am waiting for this surely very lengthy list with held breath....

      Which wars are you referring to? Vietnam, which the U.S. had no hand in starting...

      Huh?! What?! Ever heard of the

    154. Re:Wow by toddestan · · Score: 1

      And how does a place like Sweden deny the right to life, liberty, and property? It's not like Soviet Russia or China here, since they could move elsewhere at any time. Living under the system is a choice on their part.

    155. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      These are not make belive, they are official statistics.

      I believe you mean lies.

      "Infant mortality rate" seems to be quite clear. Why should you Americans use metrics that make you look worse than the others?

      It would seem quite clear. Why is it that many countries lie and use metrics that make them look better than the others?

      The US counts premies, it counts as live any birth with even any vague sign of life. Other countries count many cases as "stillbirth", meaning (wink wink) it's not an infant death if they die.

      Seriously, it amuses me people would think the US would have a higher infant mortality. Based on what possible cause would think think this? It's laughable, our medical science is the best in the world and even poor people can have their babies in a hospital.

      How can you contradict yourself in the same paragraph with so much conviction?

      What contradiction? I can get the better healthcare than 99% of the rest of the world because I'm an upper middle class American.

      How is the fact that some poor person 5 miles away can only get better health care than 90% of the rest of the world supposed to bother me more than the fact that someone in a third world country could die from god damn diarrhea tomorrow?

    156. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Games with numbers. It's fun to misuse numbers, isn't it?

      the highest in cost,

      This is because you get what you pay for. Not hard to explain there.

      first in responsiveness,

      I don't know what that means.

      37th in overall performance,

      "Performance"? Like fake infant mortality rates reported by other countries? What does "Performance" mean?

      Sure hope you don't get cancer in Europe.

      and 72nd by overall level of health

      Again, based on lies and half truths.

      Sooo.... What good is having "undeniably the best" healthcare in the world if I'm unable to get access to it?

      I do have access to it. So would you if you lived here. Fundamentally, what's the difference between Ahmed in Darfur not having access to medicine and John from Denver not having it? In fact that's too harsh - even poor people in the US have decent health care.

      You are a perfect example of why education level isn't a useless development metric. If you'd had better education, maybe you wouldn't have to resort to these kind of ad hominem attacks when your reasoning fails you.

      Sniff. Sniff. Is that irony I smell? I think "ad hominem" doesn't mean what you think it means. Note that Sweden isn't a person. Plus Sweden, compared to the US, simply is a pissant country with a small population. This is fact, not a personal attack.

    157. Re:Wow by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      You're full of shit, but I can't contradict you because you won't believe any evidence I may show you. If you don't like it, you just call it a lie.

      Enjoy your little delusional world.

    158. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      If you're seriously saying that wasn't meant to imply that Sweden has a 60% taxation rate, I think you need to work a bit on your writing.

      Again: you are the one with a reading problem. Nothing in there remotely implies the meaning you inferred. Perhaps you should consider not dictating how to interpret the English language to a native speaker? Or if you are a native speaker of English, perhaps you need to brush up on it.

      Where do you imply that it's just some people that pay that level of taxes? Nowhere.

      You have it backward. Where do I imply it is EVERYONE? Nowhere. Since I do not imply a quantity of any kind, that quantity is, by default, "some." That is how English works.

      If I say, "I ate the chicken for dinner," does that mean I ate all the chicken? If I say, "Americans drink milk from cows pumped with growth hormones," does that mean all Americans do? If I say, "Sweden has a tax rate of 60%," does that mean that tax rate applies to all Swedes? No, no, and no. English is rife with examples of "all" not being assumed the default.

      If I had said, "Sweden's tax rate is 60 percent," that implies a single tax rate which applies to everyone who pays tax. I did not use that, or a similar construction. I did not in any way imply a single tax rate. I stated only that *A* tax rate in Sweden is 60 percent.

      You're wrong. If you still disagree, I defy you to actually pick apart what I wrote and show how it means "all." Simply quoting it does no good, because the quote itself shows you're wrong.

      It's no good backpedaling ...

      I didn't.

      You exaggerated ...

      I didn't.

      Doing that just makes you seem dishonest.

      And you are only proving you can't read English very well.

    159. Re:Wow by Jhon · · Score: 1

      Well, I and many others disagree. I'm sure a smart guy like you can type the words "US electoral system flawed" into google and educate yourself a bit.

      Ok. I'll bite. I typed it in and the top google hit was about Italy's flawed electoral system. The 2nd hit calls "US 'democracy'" flawed and a call for instant runoff (which flies in the face of the concept of 'one person, one vote').

      Are you talking specifically about the presidential election? Or elections in general? Exactly HOW is it flawed?

    160. Re:Wow by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Wow, did you just basically wave your hands and say "what-EVA" in a valley girl voice? What evidence do you have? Have you looked up the infant mortality rates your type are so keen to point out and how they're calculated? Do you think infant mortality rate is even a sign of medical quality versus various social factors? Do you think the fact that Americans are fat should be blamed on the quality of our health care?

    161. Re:Wow by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Wow, did you just basically wave your hands and say "what-EVA" in a valley girl voice?

      It's more like "fuck you" with a south-European man voice.

    162. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      The fundamental goal of empire building is control and dominance.

      Which are NOT the fundamental goals of the American "empire," so you're just agreeing with me.

      Right, that is why all of the nations mentioned are sporting economic and political structures oh-so hostile to the US interests ....

      Which doesn't prove your point, at all.

      Oh, and that wee thing with military installations in nearly 70 countries ...

      And Japan has car manufacturing in the U.S. So?

      I could go on but history lessons are probably quite lost on people who are so wilfully blind as you.

      Yawn.

      Which is often the case with competing empires. They attack each other.

      Funny ... ours never did. Ever.

      You should also remember that in case of Japan, they were pretty much forced to act after US managed to cut off their fuel supply.

      Nonsense. "Don't shoot your parents and ask for mercy because you're an orphan." Japan invaded Indochina, and we cut off their oil in response. Japan didn't have to attack us: they could have left China instead. This was all about Japan trying to take Asia by force, and the U.S. trying to come to the aid of the victim.

      WTF?! Iraq attacked the US?! ... At no time did Iraq attack the US

      Yes. How soon they forget. They attacked our forces -- our no-fly zone patrols, in particular -- in the Middle East regularly for years in between the ceasefire in 1991, and the invasion in 2003.

      In fact the US and Britan by themselves (without any UN backing) established self-serving "no fly zones" after 1991 Gulf War

      No UN backing was needed.

      completely violating Iraq's sovereignty

      As a means to protect the sovereignty of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, yes. So? Iraq brought that on itself.

      following which they claimed that Iraqis firing at the US planes were somehow "attacking" the US

      Which is self-evidently and unassailably true.

      UN resolutions

      Iraq's repeated and intentional and nearly incessant violations of Resolutions 687 and following.

      If that is the reason for US invasion then Israel should have been chock-full of US troops bringing "democracy" and "freedom" there twice over, since by 2003 it has violated two times as many UN resolutions as Iraq had (Iraq = 69, Israel = 138).

      You apparently don't realize that makes no sense. Can you find me a single UN resolution against Israel that not only says "if you don't comply with all these terms, we will force compliance?" Let alone such a resolution that Israel itself agreed to?

      No, you cannot.

      Not to mention that the final UN resolution 1441 before 2003 invasion did not endorse military action

      There was no need for it to. The United States was an independent party to the 1991 war, and as Iraq violated the ceasefire agreement, the United States had the authority to reengage to force compliance if the United Nations refused to take its stated responsibility to do so itself. Indeed, the UN violated Resolution 687 by not forcing compliance as it said it would: that was not merely a threat to Iraq, but a promise to the U.S. and other member States, and it failed to live up to that promise. The U.S. had every legal right to reengage. (Whether it should have done so is a separate question.)

      In the light of the above stellar commitment to "international law" (i.e. ignore it when US is involved and sternly apply it to everyone else) this line must surely be an attempt at comedy.

      Non sequitur.

      Right, that is why you can point to

    163. Re:Wow by pudge · · Score: 1

      And how does a place like Sweden deny the right to life, liberty, and property?

      That it denies the right to property is self-evident: taking your property by force to give it to someone else for the sake of distributing wealth is denying your right to property. The government is saying that someone else has a right to your property. Obviously.

      Now, your property is the product of your liberty. You act freely and make things and use those things and buy other things. So when someone denies your right to property, it denies your right to liberty, since it takes away the product of your liberty.

      It's like if you made a cake for yourself, and someone else ate it, and each time you did it the same thing happened: they are not just denying your right to eat your cake, but actually denying your right to make a cake for yourself at all.

      And your liberty, of course, is what you do with your life. Same principle applies: affronts to your liberty are affronts to your right to life, itself. You have only a short time on this earth, and when someone takes your liberty, they take a piece of your life, too.

      All that said, yes, Sweden is a free enough country that people can leave, sometimes. But that doesn't justify it.

  7. Hey North Korea! by hnangelo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stop making bombs otherwise we're gonna hit you with the bombs we are making!

    1. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop making nuclear straw men, or I'll hit you with this straw man I'm making.

    2. Re:Hey North Korea! by hnangelo · · Score: 0

      Oh yes, sorry, I forgot the USA does not have a thousand "nuclear straw men" in storage. And I even thought they had used a couple "nuclear straw men" in the past.

      Silly me.

    3. Re:Hey North Korea! by megrims · · Score: 1, Informative

      Unfortunately, the US scares me a lot more than North Korea does.

    4. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are pure Cowboys Idiots! I prefer 1.000 times more North Korea and Iran!!!

      Stop making bombs, invest in the healthcare of Americans! Dismantle the obsolete Military Industries.

      Wars is not the future!

    5. Re:Hey North Korea! by robinesque · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

    6. Re:Hey North Korea! by mqduck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Which one's actually used a nuke?

      --
      Property is theft.
    7. Re:Hey North Korea! by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      I disagree, it was an accepted fact that Kim Jong-il could stop a nuclear weapon (or a conventional one) from detonating by just the presence of his mere awesomeness. This is what gives them an upper hand in the negotiation table.

    8. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      Thank you for so succinctly pointing out why this is a good idea for the U.S.

      (I think you meant it to be an argument AGAINST the bomb, but ... it's not.)

    9. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Which one's actually used a nuke?

      The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end).

    10. Re:Hey North Korea! by andi75 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that. Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).

    11. Re:Hey North Korea! by Rogerborg · · Score: 1
      Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.

      Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities? Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?

      Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?

      If your counter is "Only because they're being forcibly prevented", then that only serves to highlight that North Korea can be forcibly prevented from empire building. What's stopping the USA?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    12. Re:Hey North Korea! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Then you don't live in Japan or South Korea. Seriously, the US has no real fear of North Korea either, any more than we are afraid of Pakistan having nuclear weapons, but we have an agreement to protect South Korea and Japan from them, and that means something.

      --
      Qxe4
    13. Re:Hey North Korea! by dintech · · Score: 1

      Oh, not that tired old justification again. What is it with the American psyche that feels the need to justifify such barbarity?

      The reason the bomb was dropped was because it cost a fortune to build and congress would ask serious questions if it wasn't used. The "saving lives" argument only appeared later on. You need to go back and read the history again.

    14. Re:Hey North Korea! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, he is right. Whether it was necessary or not can be argued, but that the nuclear bombs saved lives is indisputable. The planned firebombing campaign that would have happened had the bombs not been dropped would have killed many many more people. This isn't a theoretical thing, the plans were already made, just waiting for the order to go.

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not gonna happen with over 13 000 NK artillery pieces aimed at Seoul.

    16. Re:Hey North Korea! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Rule of international politics: If you don't have nukes those who do will do their best to prevent you from getting any.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    17. Re:Hey North Korea! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      The reason the bomb was dropped was because it cost a fortune to build and congress would ask serious questions if it wasn't used.

      No to mention that there's no "test" like one on a real target.

    18. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's impossible to say if the second nuke was necessary or if a non-civilian target would have had the same effect.

      It's not like the nukes were dropped 20 minutes apart, there was a 3 day gap. Three days in which the Japanese government chose not to surrender, despite losing a city. Three days of arguing whether or not the US had a new weapon, or if what happened was some kind of insane fluke they could cover with propaganda. Three days of arguing if the US had the capability to do it again. Three days of not attempting to negotiate a surrender. Could it have come in 3 more days? Perhaps, but we'll never know what would have happened if the US had not used a second nuke.

      It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where major combat losses abroad in decade long wars cost fewer men than some individual battles of World War 2. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons in a world where nuclear technology and weaponry is a fact of life we're all thoroughly aware of. It's easy to moralize about the use of nuclear weapons when it's not you, your family, or your friends fighting every day, potentially dying each day the war continued. It's easy to moralize about the method of ending a conflict which, not two months earlier, had Japan declaring they would NEVER accept an unconditional surrender (they wanted to drag out the fight to be as bitter and expensive for the allies as possible so they wouldn't have to accept an unconditional surrender).

      You can talk about how it was the wrong choice all you want, but in the end, you're all just armchair quarterbacks. We play video games and watch movies that trivialize the most destructive and influential war since the dawn of man. Comedies are made about Nazi internment camps and we put love stories in the attack on Pearl Harbor.

      Frankly, nukes suck, but I'm happier knowing that today, in 2009, we're still using up the supply of purple hearts we ordered in the 1940s for expected losses in the invasion of Japan.

    19. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea, Fuck Yeah!!

    20. Re:Hey North Korea! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Mostly because unlike NKor the US has the means to deliver that bomb, too...

      For all who're so afraid of some badbadbad country having "da bomb": FexEx does not ship nuclear ordnance overnight. So unless that country also has the means to reliably send a bomb somewhere near you, don't bother worrying.

      Yes, reliably. Nothing blows more than trying to send a nuke and have it go up in flames along the way. Countries usually don't like that, especially if they have the means to retaliate. You don't want to send a nuke without making sure that you can at least say that you hit him first, it's like swinging at the schoolyard bully while you don't even know whether you're in range.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    21. Re:Hey North Korea! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I do think it's time to put that theory to the test. Anyone prepping a nuke test anytime soon? Invite him.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Hey North Korea! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them? Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?

      Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    23. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.

      Actually, the nukes didn't provide anything. The Japanese were trying to negotiate a surrender anyway. The nukes were dropped mostly to impress Stalin, who, when told by Truman about the bomb, didn't react (beyond telling Truman he expected to see the weapon used against Japan), prompting his counterparts to decide he had not understood the importance of the message.

    24. Re:Hey North Korea! by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      IMO you should be scared, as should anyone that threatens the US. That's what that huge proverbial stick is used for. To make you so scared to attack that it would take faith in an afterlife to even contemplate it. Sounds like it's working to me.

      But answer this, which country would you rather live in? IMO these type of guys need to be nipped in the bud, otherwise they simply build up power until next thing you know, you're hiding in the ditch while the tanks roll by. Fight them everywhere, even if they appear in the US, fight them or face the consequences.

      No worries though. NK can't lob nukes at you. Yet.

    25. Re:Hey North Korea! by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Wow! Can Slashdot employees actually be modded down to -1 Flaming Troll-land?

      Stay tuned and find out.

       
      P.S. Love the comments about Sweden.
      Haven't heard those "You would be sprecken German if it weren't for US" in a long time.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    26. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, goodie, this debate again *eyeroll*

      I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that.

      Well, considering the Japan didn't surrender after the first. Yes.

      Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder?

      The warfare of the day was carpet bombing, entire cities were being destroyed one way or another.

      (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).

      At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.(source)
      The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.(source)

      Though I do agree, the primary target(s) should not have been civilian. But the attack needed to be devastating/terrifying enough to make Japan exit the war without a land invasion.

    27. Re:Hey North Korea! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      The reason the bomb was dropped was because it cost a fortune to build and congress would ask serious questions if it wasn't used.

      Don't forget the US wanted to scare the shit out of Stalin. Of course, the Soviet Union had the bomb a few years later and then the nuclear arms race began. One of the most useless and stupid ways of spending money and time.

    28. Re:Hey North Korea! by e2d2 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They didn't surrender, so the second one was deemed needed.

      Have you ever seen the American casualty count just to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

      Iwo Jima: 23, 573
      Okinawa: 50, 000

      Now extrapolate that to an invasion of Japan and you'll see why the US army is still using Purple Heart medals it minted for the planned invasion of Japan. They expected close to 500, 000 casualties to invade Japan and possibly more. Some planners expected it to be be between 1M - 4M American casualties.

      Fact is though it was Russia's declaration of war that brought Japan to it's knees. Russian forces combined with American forces would eventually, but not easily, conquer Japan.

      But seriously, look into the history of Japan during the war and you'll see why they were such a feared enemy. The bushido code is still alive today, but at that time it was life itself.

      Besides, does it really matter how one dies? it doesn't matter if it was by a club or a nuclear weapon. You're still dead.

    29. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      GP's wrong.

      Just as before the beginning of the war, the Japanese were negotiating, and they would have surrendered anyway. Few believed it was possible to resist the allies after Germany fell.

      Truman was rash, inexperienced in foreign policy, and desperate to impress the world. So, the decision to assert himself was natural. He also wanted to see the weapon in action, and he was quite pissed by the reaction of Stalin to his super-important message about the bomb, which Stalin just shrugged off.

      So, he dropped the bomb.

    30. Re:Hey North Korea! by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      Firebombing campaign probably wouldn't have been necessary either as it now seems pretty well confirmed that Japan was already trying to surrender before the bomb was dropped, and under the same terms that were eventually accepted: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    31. Re:Hey North Korea! by Rennt · · Score: 1

      It is only a indisputable fact if you accept that the only way to end the war was to bomb Japan into submission. This viewpoint is a legacy of propaganda (and public will) of the time.

      The reason a more peaceful resolution was not on the table (or being seriously pursued) was that ending the war was a secondary objective. Teaching the Japan a lesson it would never forget was primary.

    32. Re:Hey North Korea! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end)."

      Who still wants to believe such propaganda? Japan was already looking for their way to surrender via USSR and they were already deprived of naval and air forces; raw materials and food. All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait. Those two nukes probably were much more a message to USSR than to Japan.

    33. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, my deluded American friend, read the paper of the target committee - the people who selected how to drop the bomb specify their reasons there.

      The targets were selected for maximum psychological effect in Japan (that is, maximum number of civilian victims) and maximum newsworthiness abroad.

      There are even some ridiculous comments made there - "Kyoto should be hit, because the people in Kyoto are smarter and can figure out faster what is going on". Yet, they don't hit the smart people for some reason ;)

      The target reports specify explicitly that the minor military objectives should be chosen inside a large non-military area, so that the mission would be safer, and the effects - more pronounced.

      It was a Dr. Mengele-kind experiment, a war crime, pure and simple - just like the mass rapes by US military in Europe, which are also largely skipped over in your history books and were, for some reason, spared any mention during the Potsdam tribunals.

    34. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Besides, does it really matter how one dies?

      Apparently, it does, hence the complex international legal treatment of the subject. In general, use of weapons that kill indiscriminately was frowned upon even before the WWII.

      During WWII most warring nations used such weapons to an extent. Regretfully, only those who lost were punished additionally for that. Those who won got a free pass, and that is why we may yet see some WMD usage, especially now that MAD is gone for good.

    35. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      According to Eisenhower, MacArthur, and most of the other top American brass at that time, even the *first* bomb was unnecessary, since the Japanese, were no longer capable of undertaking offensive action, with their fleet and air forces smashed, their cities mostly rubble. The Americans dropped the bomb while the Japanese leadership was looking for a face-saving way to end the conflict.

      It was a civilian official, the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, who had the ear of Truman regarding the use of the bomb, and it was his advice that Truman took (I paraphrase:) "Drop the bomb to show the Soviets how tough we are."

      But the official story ever since the first bomb was dropped was that the bombings were an act of mercy that saved Japanese and American lives during the (again according to the official story) absolutely inevitable invasion of the Japanese mainland several weeks later, an invasion that could not possibly have been forestalled by a negotiated surrender.

      This version of events has been repeated so many times from so many different sources that it has won out by sheer brute force of neuro-linguistic programming, and thanks to this propaganda, there are legions of liver-spotted veterans in V.F.W. halls across the fruited plain whose blood pressure rises dangerously at the suggestion of that the use of the bomb does not fall somewhere between being either a grim necessity or a sacred duty.

    36. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the US has used a nuke. Big f#cking deal. It did so in
      a `real` war were a silly little primitive nuke wasn`t even
      the most destructive `war crime`. You liberal weenies are so
      out of touch it might be funny if it weren`t just sad.

      More people died in the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo
      while you`re whining about nukes. This is rather the whole
      point of a `big bomb`. It can hit a hardened target before
      it becomes a serious threat while avoiding giving ammunition
      to the whiners.

      In the grand scheme of thing, in a serious real war, a single
      nuke is not that impressive.

      Unfortunately, pissant brinksmen don`t take this into account.

    37. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, the US scares me a lot more than North Korea does.

      Then you are an idiot.

    38. Re:Hey North Korea! by maxume · · Score: 1

      So in 30 or 40 years, when every last American who was even conceivably involved in WW2 is dead and gone, can we finally put this one to rest?

      I mean, I don't think it is a reasonable argument today (because there is a vastly different government in charge of the United States), but I don't expect everybody to agree that enough time has passed, because people are often fucking nuts.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    39. Re:Hey North Korea! by Dr.+Impossible · · Score: 1

      So in 30 or 40 years, when every last American who was even conceivably involved in WW2 is dead and gone, can we finally put this one to rest?

      Unlikely. Many people still complain about the Crusades.

    40. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, does it really matter how one dies?

      It's not so much about "how" but rather about "who". In war, you're not supposed to explicitly target civilians resp. noncombatants and especially not mass execute them.

    41. Re:Hey North Korea! by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      Fact is though it was Russia's declaration of war that brought Japan to it's knees. Russian forces combined with American forces would eventually, but not easily, conquer Japan.

      It wasn't the fact that Russia + USA was more likely to defeat Japan.
      It was all about what would happen afterwards. A large portion of Germany didn't surrender to the USA and Britain in time and look where it got them...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    42. Re:Hey North Korea! by flink · · Score: 1

      For all who're so afraid of some badbadbad country having "da bomb": FexEx does not ship nuclear ordnance overnight. So unless that country also has the means to reliably send a bomb somewhere near you, don't bother worrying.

      Just stash your bomb in with a few keys of marijuana or coke. That stuff seems to have no problem making it into the country.

    43. Re:Hey North Korea! by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      A war between the N and South would completely destabilize Asia. It would destroy or at least seriously damage the markets, thus at least putting your job and future into jeopardy. The US will immediately support the South, as it should, which will at least cost you tax dollars or if things get real bad, cost you being drafted.

      On top of that, a nuclear NKorea is destabilizing in itself. Its already turned itself into a nuclear bully, demanding aid and cash or else. Im sure they are on the fast track to be able to hit the west coast with a nuke in a few years.

      >I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them?

      No military is going to defeat NKorea without massive damage and death to Seoul and the potential for a nuclear weapon to go off. I dont care where you live or who you are, thats bad for everyone.

    44. Re:Hey North Korea! by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Have you ever seen the American casualty count just to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

      Iwo Jima: 23, 573
      Okinawa: 50, 000

      You do know of course that in the military context, casualties = killed + wounded, right?
      I don't want to lessen anything, but the numbers of (american) soldiers actually killed are quite a
      bit lower:

      Iwo Jima: ~7,000
      Okinawa: ~13,000

      This does of course not include japanese and civilian losses, wich were massive. And it does in no way counter
      the point of the nuclear bombs' net life-saving effect. I'm still entirely undecided about that.

      However, I don't get why an invasion was seen as so inevitable. Japan is an island! Just lock them in and wait - I'm
      pretty sure that complete air and sea superiority could have been achieved - the Sowjets would even have helped.

    45. Re:Hey North Korea! by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      However, I don't get why an invasion was seen as so inevitable. Japan is an island! Just lock them in and wait - I'm pretty sure that complete air and sea superiority could have been achieved - the Sowjets would even have helped.

      In that case, I would assume that the Soviets would have helped themselves to Japan by invading it first.

    46. Re:Hey North Korea! by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      If Japan was serious about surrendering, why did they let the US bomb them twice before actually doing it? Maybe my logic is flawed, but if surrender was a serious consideration before any of the nukes were dropped, why did it take 2 nukes before it actually happened?

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    47. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      The Chinese and the North Korean governments and various groups from Kamchatka to Tasmania are routinely bashing Japan about war crimes for which Japan was punished, and which punishment and settlement has been accepted by all governments in question long time ago.

      One of the main reasons for bashing Japan is the perceived (incorrectly IMHO) rejection by Japan of the existence of the said war crimes.

      More than enough US war crimes are documented, but were never acknowledged by the US, and the US has never accepted responsibility or settled with anyone (except, perhaps, with Japan).

      So, yeah, expect the issue to come up more often in the future, especially if (as many people expect) US loses its sole superpower status.

      Especially in the context of the "moral high ground", which US likes to talk about so much.

    48. Re:Hey North Korea! by Rennt · · Score: 1
      I will directly quote from the parent's link for those who don't click through...

      The authenticity of Trohan's article (which elicited no editorial notice or re-publication in any other major U.S. newspaper), was never challenged by the White House. Former President Herbert Hoover personally queried General MacArthur on the Tribune's story and the general acknowledged its accuracy in every detail.
      According to Harry Elmer Barnes, Truman was aware of the January surrender offer by the Japanese and privately confessed that both atomic warfare as well as further conventional military operations were unnecessary for concluding the war in the Pacific.

    49. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      I don't think they needed to use *two* nukes for that.

      You don't understand the history then.

      Wasn't the second one just outright mass murder? (you could also argue the first one didn't need to be deployed against civial targets).

      Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).

      Even Japanese generals have said that Japan would not have surrendered if not for both bombs, being on civilian targets. Only that show of force, and our willingness to use it against civilians, would have been sufficient to stop Japan and save lives.

    50. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Oh, not that tired old justification again.

      Historical fact. Shrug.

      What is it with the American psyche that feels the need to justifify such barbarity?

      I attempt to justify nothing. I simply read and understand history and report what history says.

      The reason the bomb was dropped was because it cost a fortune to build and congress would ask serious questions if it wasn't used.

      Unlike my argument -- which is backed by the historical record -- yours is just made-up.

      The "saving lives" argument only appeared later on.

      Not remotely. That was the whole point. It is why Japan surrendered. It was the WHOLE POINT at the time.

      You need to go back and read the history again.

      You need to read it a first time.

    51. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, blah. Japan was already blockaded, utterly defeated, and teetering on the brink of the stone age when it was nuked. The nukes just provided a convenient excuse for them to surrender.

      They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.

      Question: to demonstrate this overwhelming new weapon, did the USA have to actually drop it on two Japanese cities?

      Yes. They were not going to surrender after the first one, by their own statements.

      Wouldn't dropping one in the entrance to Tokyo Bay have done the same job?

      Nope. Not only did we need to show the power, but show that we were willing to drop it on civilians, and do it more than once.

      Well, that's ancient history. How many sovereign nations has North Korea invaded recently?

      If we let them, they very well might invade ROK, and they actively threaten Japan regularly. And I only advocate attacking DPRK if they demonstrate they are likely to attack (either Japan or ROK, most likely).

      It's like Iran. Almost NO ONE in government, of either party, is in favor of attacking Iran, UNLESS and UNTIL they are directly threatening us or our allies. Same thing with DPRK.

      If your counter is "Only because they're being forcibly prevented", then that only serves to highlight that North Korea can be forcibly prevented from empire building.

      We've only slowed them down: we have not stopped them, obviously, since they've made progress on their nukes and rockets and have engaged in illicit nuclear arms trading.

      What's stopping the USA?

      Our principles. We have had many chances to engage in empire building, from WWII through Korea and Central America and the Middle East, and we've not done so, because we don't want to.

    52. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them?

      I have no idea which military you speak of -- obviously not the U.S., since it's the most powerful in the world, yes, greater than China's -- so I cannot evaluate what your military could do. But any armed conflict with DPRK -- which would be brought on by their imminent threats, not by our arbitrary choice -- would result in a massive loss of life, so yes, that is something to fear.

      Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?

      Again, no clue what your country is, but my country has these things called "allies" that are well in range of DPRK's delivery range, and we would protect our allies. Not to mention if left unchecked, DPRK will likely get significantly increased range to hit my country, and yours.

      Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.

      DPRK would be able to someday, and very well might. The U.S. can, and almost surely never would.

    53. Re:Hey North Korea! by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can agree with that. But being nuked into submission killed fewer people than being firebombed into submission would have. I'm not saying it was a good idea, or necessary, but then I don't consider Pearl Harbor to have been a particularly bright idea either. It was a different world than today.

      --
      Qxe4
    54. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Who still wants to believe such propaganda?

      It is not about what I want to believe. I never believe anything because I want to. I only believe what I am convinced of, and the facts show it.

      All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait.

      False.

    55. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't surrender, so the second one was deemed needed.

      Even then, there was an attempted coup to prevent Japan's surrender.

    56. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me please why I should be afraid of a country that's technologically so far inferior to mine that even OUR military can blow the snot out of them? Not to mention that they're half a globe away and have no means to transport any meaningful amount of troops or ordnance anywhere close my country?

      Whether or not they "want" to invade or kill me is moot when they're unable to. The US is able to. Korea is not.

      You can't kill "ideas". The NK people hates USA. Every third world country hates USA. You can invade us, and destroy us, but you can't kill our ideas.

      You see, you don't buy "ideas" from a mall. Go get your flag and shut up.

    57. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, who wasn't raping Europeans? :)

    58. Re:Hey North Korea! by Forbman · · Score: 1

      and the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin, et al. weren't?

    59. Re:Hey North Korea! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, DAMM is back. (drunks against mad mothers)

    60. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They were NOT GOING to surrender. We would have had to firebomb them or invade if we didn't use the nukes. The entire historical record, including statements from Japanese generals, show this.

      That's what I learned in government schools. Recent reading has lead me to believe otherwise. e.g. Wikipedia's account has documentation of ongoing surrender negotiations during the first half of '45. There's a book on the subject I've got on my reading list, but can't claim to be very well informed at this point.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    61. Re:Hey North Korea! by rrkap · · Score: 1

      During WWII most warring nations used such weapons to an extent. Regretfully, only those who lost were punished additionally for that. Those who won got a free pass, and that is why we may yet see some WMD usage, especially now that MAD is gone for good.

      It has always been the case that the loser is punished and the winner isn't and always will be. That's why when you're fighting a war you need to do everything you can to make sure that you win.

      --
      I like my beverages with warning labels!
    62. Re:Hey North Korea! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives

      Wow, unequivocally, huh? Ignoring for a moment that the US was ignoring Japanese attempts to open a dialog for an end to the war, what does flattening cities - you know, those places civilians like to hang out in - have to do with saving lives?

      --
      Property is theft.
    63. Re:Hey North Korea! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, North Korea is capable of hitting Hawaii with a nuclear-tipped missile. So please expand your knowledge of American geography!

    64. Re:Hey North Korea! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      One of the main reasons for bashing Japan is the perceived (incorrectly IMHO) rejection by Japan of the existence of the said war crimes.

      It's not so much that Japan has never admitted it committed *some* war crimes. In fact, it's not even that there are war crimes Japan still won't admit. Okay, it's *mainly* that, but it's also that Japan is constantly trying forget those admissions and begin indoctrinating school children in the glory of the Japanese empire again.

      --
      Property is theft.
    65. Re:Hey North Korea! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I'm not a liberal, I'm just as upset about the fire bombings, and bombing civilian targets in order to send a message to their government is atrocious and never acceptable. "Pissant brinksman" out.

      --
      Property is theft.
    66. Re:Hey North Korea! by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your book is, but you should read /The Myth of the Good War/ if you want to lose that one reason you still had to feel good about your (if you live in the US) government.

      --
      Property is theft.
    67. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I don't know what your book is

      I don't recall either - it's tucked away at home "The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb" or something generic like that.

      but you should read /The Myth of the Good War/

      Sounds reasonable, judging a book by its title. ;)

      if you want to lose that one reason you still had to feel good about your (if you live in the US) government.

      hrm, which reason? Our constitution provides for a 2-year maximum on a standing Army, so that when politicians decide they want to start warring, they have to convince enough Americans to enlist. That's effectively when there's a serious threat to the homeland.

      The same constitution lacks a sufficient mechanism to see that its prescriptions are enforced.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    68. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      You're obviously unaware of the position of your own government regarding the punishment of war crimes after WWII. Apparently, it wasn't conditional on winning, at least in theory.

    69. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Wow, unequivocally, huh?

      Yes.

      Ignoring for a moment that the US was ignoring Japanese attempts to open a dialog for an end to the war ...

      Because they were not meaningful attempts, as the record shows. Japan was not willing to surrender. And they were not ignored: in late July the Allies released the Postdam Declaration, giving Japan the option of surrendering. They refused. The bombs were dropped in early August.

      ... what does flattening cities - you know, those places civilians like to hang out in - have to do with saving lives?

      Obviously, because more lives would have been lost had Japan not surrendered (mostly Japanese lives).

    70. Re:Hey North Korea! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the US wanted an unconditional surrender and Japan didn't. The second bomb changed their minds.

    71. Re:Hey North Korea! by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I have no idea which military you speak of...

      My money's on Switzerland, Belgium, or Vatican City.

    72. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      ongoing surrender negotiations during the first half of '45

      The record is pretty clear. Japan refused to surrender. They did not engage in serious negotiations to surrender, but to end the war WITHOUT surrender. Granted, Togo and Sato and others did believe surrender would have to happen, but this was not communicated to the Allies. What was communicated to the Allies, even into late July after Potsdam, was that they would not surrender, that they would continue to fight ... which was the view of many of the other top-level Japanese generals and ministers.

      If they'd have had a real serious overture of surrender, the bombs wouldn't have been dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. They didn't, and we had no reason to think they were actually going to surrender any time soon.

    73. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Granted, Togo and Sato and others did believe surrender would have to happen, but this was not communicated to the Allies

      Is this incorrect?

      By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms that would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels, were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 2, two days before the Yalta Conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand--the proposals all included the condition that the Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler.

      This is basically what we wound up with after the two bombs.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    74. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Is this incorrect?

      No, but I admit to being not entirely clear. When I say "surrender," I mean "unconditional surrender." I don't think any other kind seriously exists, and neither did the Allies. As you can see there, the Emperor wanted "surrender terms that would protect his position." If you get to remain Emperor, that's not really surrender, is it?

      You can, of course, criticize that position. But it's clear that actual "unconditional" surrender was the American position, and that Japan rejected it.

    75. Re:Hey North Korea! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Which one's actually used a nuke?

      The U.S. And in doing so, unequivocally saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives (mostly Japanese lives, by the way ... which probably angers the DPRK to no end).

      And the reason that they had to drop those nukes on the middle of civilian population centres and not, say, military installations would be what, exactly?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    76. Re:Hey North Korea! by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      I do know about casualties, I added them myself to form my cited number of casualties.

      But remember that Japan was voluntarily isolated for many generations and was totally self-sufficient. Only their war machine and massive expansionist policies needed outside trade. So you have to wonder if they would've submitted to a blockade.

    77. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If you get to remain Emperor, that's not really surrender, is it?

      Most surrenders are negotiated. Regardless of the definition, though, from an outcomes perspective, we wound up with exactly what they were asking for, the Emperor in a puppet leader position, without any real power, after the final surrender.

      Except we (the human race) lost all the civilians who were obliterated at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Consider the converse, that Roosevelt accepted the [conditional] Japanese surrender at Yalta. How many Americans could have been spared?

      I think we're in agreement that Roosevelt, then Truman acted in accordance with a pure unconditional surrender policy, which they ultimately won. It just seems to me that their motivations were maniacal and the price too high, given the outcome. Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but getting the war done with ASAP and understanding the Japanese culture ('saving face') could have ended the war earlier and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    78. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      And the reason that they had to drop those nukes on the middle of civilian population centres and not, say, military installations would be what, exactly?

      That would not likely have had the desired effect of forcing them to surrender.

    79. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      BS. Japan's surrender was not even the most significant part of the motivation to use the bombs. The nukes were meant mostly to show the world who is the new master, and as an experiment on the bomb effects.

      You can look over the motivation in the documents of the so-called "target committee" yourself, I suppose. The propaganda value of the bomb is the most important item. The military objectives are qualified as "minor", and "secondary", and a maximization of the civilian casualties is a prominent requirement in the target specifications.

      As a sideline, the nukes are the reason why the Japanese war crimes were treated in such a stark contrast with those of the Germans -- Japan gave up claims against potential US war crimes in exchange for a lenient treatment of their own. Which is now a constant source of political problems.

    80. Re:Hey North Korea! by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Appparently Pudge has escaped from the reinforced cubicle they keep the rabid insane employees in at Slashdot HQ.

    81. Re:Hey North Korea! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      If Japan was serious about surrendering, why did they let the US bomb them twice before actually doing "it?"

      You say "Japan let the US bomb them" as if they were able to stop USA from it (look with care to your answer or you will end up in the uncomfortable position of having to explain things like why USA let Al-Qaeda thrasing the Twin Towers).

      "Maybe my logic is flawed"

      I'd say yes, it is.

      "but if surrender was a serious consideration before any of the nukes were dropped, why did it take 2 nukes before it actually happened?"

      One thing is "honorable surrending" and a different one "unconditional surrending". And the two bombs where thrown on a three day span. Don't you know what "burocracy" means? I wouldn't be too much surprised if we learnt that three days were not enough for the Emperor to even know about it, much less for all the people involved to make there minds from "honorable surrending" to "unconditional surrending" (and even then, and after two nukes, under the condition that the Emperor would save his head and title).

    82. Re:Hey North Korea! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "All the USA had to do for Japan to surrender was sitting down and wait.
      False."

      I'm overthrown with your arguments on how an island blocked, almost starving, without navy, army or raw materials could sustain even the most passive "wait and see" strategy.

    83. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      I'm overthrown with your arguments on how an island blocked, almost starving, without navy, army or raw materials could sustain even the most passive "wait and see" strategy.

      Then you don't know the Japanese people very well.

    84. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Japan's surrender was not even the most significant part of the motivation to use the bombs.

      Yes, in fact, it was.

    85. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Most surrenders are negotiated.

      That is irrelevant. We demanded "unconditional" surrender and they told us they refused to consider it. Anything less than unconditional surrender meant Japan would remain a threat. You're right about "saving face" ... we could NOT allow them to do so. We did understand Japanese culture, which is why we had to bring them to their knees, because only through such humiliation could the war actually be won. Even a victory only in appearance, such as us agreeing to allow the Emperor to stay on as a condition of surrender, would mean trouble down the road.

      Surrender had to be total. And I think history has proven we were right. Japan's culture has turned into a pacifist one, and they are no longer a threat, but a close friend; I doubt this would have happened if we didn't bring Japan to its knees. If we had started the war that would be one thing, but we didn't.

      Except we (the human race) lost all the civilians who were obliterated at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

      Yep. Japan should have agreed to the unconditional surrender.

      It just seems to me that their motivations were maniacal and the price too high, given the outcome.

      It's easy to say that 60 years later, but at the time, they were faced with an enemy that by their own accounts and by history we believed WOULD NOT surrender unless they were forced into it by more than just conventional military losses. Our government had every reason to believe that Japan would not surrender, and would keep fighting, and that hundreds of thousands more would die.

    86. Re:Hey North Korea! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Then you don't know the Japanese people very well."

      You mean, the Japanese people which went to war out of being afraid of starving and without raw materials due to USA blockage because they knew they couldn't sustain it?

    87. Re:Hey North Korea! by andi75 · · Score: 1

      Your posting proves that nothing is so bad it can't be used as a deterring example for others.

      > You don't understand the history then.

      That's an unfounded accusation. And very impolite.

      > Wrong on both counts. Please read and understand the history (as some people have informed you in the replies).

      You don't give an argument to support your 'wrong' statement. Instead you refer to the other replies. Yes, I read them. And some of them make excellent points (one way or another), thank you. Your reply does not.

      What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?

    88. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Anything less than unconditional surrender meant Japan would remain a threat. You're right about "saving face" ... we could NOT allow them to do so.

      But that's exactly what we did. We allowed the Emperor to remain as a puppet leader for that reason.

      wiki hirohito:

      U.S. General Douglas MacArthur insisted that Emperor Shwa retain the throne. MacArthur saw the emperor as a symbol of the continuity and cohesion of the Japanese people.

      The outcomes were identical yet hundreds of thousands of innocents were incinerated due to the chosen tactics.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    89. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      That's an unfounded accusation. And very impolite.

      Which makes it a perfect response to the claim that the second bomb was "mass murder."

      You don't give an argument to support your 'wrong' statement.

      Neither do you give any argument.

      Instead you refer to the other replies. Yes, I read them. And some of them make excellent points (one way or another), thank you. Your reply does not.

      Because I didn't need to re-make the same points.

      What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?

      What does this one of yours?

    90. Re:Hey North Korea! by andi75 · · Score: 1

      I didn't need to give an argument, because the comment was phrased as a question, introducing the topic into the discussion.

      It may have been phrased a tiny little inflammatory, but that was the stimulation to spark a discussion of the matter.

      I'm entirely open to the possibility that there was some justification but I still believe that that number of civilian casualties has far too high (and we're talking peaceful people here, especially children, who couldn't care less about the war). It could probably have been kept much lower (e.g. nuking the snow cap off Mount Fujy would have probably a devastating psychological effect as well).

      > Because I didn't need to re-make the same points.

      Then your entire post was just an attempt at insulting me? That's not nice.

      >> What exactly did *your* posting contribute to the discussion?

      > What does this one of yours?

      It educates you on the rules of rational debating. Some of them are

      1) Stay polite
      2) Have an open mind
      3) Back up your claims with arguments

      There's more but those are the most important.

    91. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Anything less than unconditional surrender meant Japan would remain a threat. You're right about "saving face" ... we could NOT allow them to do so.

      But that's exactly what we did. We allowed the Emperor to remain as a puppet leader for that reason.

      No, you're not getting it. Doing so on OUR terms means he DID NOT save face. It was only if it was on HIS terms that it would be saving face. And as your quote shows, keeping him there, for our part, was not about saving face at all, but of continuity. Make no mistake, this was a humiliation entirely for the Emperor. But he did help hold his people together by staying in power.

    92. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      It may have been phrased a tiny little inflammatory, but that was the stimulation to spark a discussion of the matter.

      Just don't complain when I respond in kind. Shrug.

      I'm entirely open to the possibility that there was some justification but I still believe that that number of civilian casualties has far too high

      Look, it sucked. But at the time people thought not doing it would lead to FAR MORE casualties.

      It could probably have been kept much lower (e.g. nuking the snow cap off Mount Fujy would have probably a devastating psychological effect as well).

      Easy to say that, but obviously the psychological effect of bombing people is FAR greater, and we had only two bombs. We couldn't hut Fuji first and then maybe a port and then come back and hit people if those didn't work as we wanted to. This is war, and we have to do up front what we think will have the maximum effectiveness to END that war.

      Then your entire post was just an attempt at insulting me?

      Shrug. No moreso than yours was just an attempt to call Americans mass murderers.

      It educates you ...

      No, it really doesn't.

      1) Stay polite

      Except, you weren't.

      2) Have an open mind

      Except, you weren't.

      3) Back up your claims with arguments

      Except, you didn't, and I didn't need to, because others already did.

    93. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I'll try again: motivation is irrelevant, outcomes are what matter in ethical decisions.

      The reason the Japanese surrender proposal included the Emperor as a puppet was for saving face - I was merely trying to relate their motivation. Roosevelt dismissed that out of hand because his motivation was total victory/humiliation, not practical victory. That's an emotional argument, not a strategic one (assuming ending the war was the goal).

      The outcome of the Roosevelt/Truman strategy was the same as if the Japanese surrender were accepted at Yalta, except for the needless loss of life. No emotional end can justify mass murder of non-combatants. If the outcomes were significantly different, then perhaps the mass murder strategy could have been rationalized, but that's not the case.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    94. Re:Hey North Korea! by andi75 · · Score: 1

      I just want to clarify one thing, so I'm not misunderstood:

      When some general or politician decides to kill a lot of people, it doesn't make any of his fellow countrymen a murderer as well. The majority may have voted the guy into office, but he probably didn't say "and if you vote for me I'll nuke as many Japanese civilians as I can" beforehand.

      The rest I'll let stand for itself, because your claims are really just that. Your claims. Nothing more.

    95. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      motivation is irrelevant, outcomes are what matter in ethical decisions.

      That's not true at all. Intent is what matters most.

      The reason the Japanese surrender proposal included the Emperor as a puppet was for saving face

      Right. And it is why it was rejected.

      Roosevelt dismissed that out of hand because his motivation was total victory/humiliation, not practical victory.

      No. Practical victory for the long term required total victory. I think that's the part you're missing.

      The outcome of the Roosevelt/Truman strategy was the same as if the Japanese surrender were accepted at Yalta

      No, it wasn't, because the impact on the Japanese psyche was different. Allowing the Emperor to continue as a puppet, versus agreeing to it as terms of surrender, are two very different things.

      No emotional end can justify mass murder of non-combatants.

      There was no mass murder.

      If the outcomes were significantly different

      They were.

    96. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      When some general or politician decides to kill a lot of people, it doesn't make any of his fellow countrymen a murderer as well.

      Granted.

      The rest I'll let stand for itself, because your claims are really just that. Your claims. Nothing more.

      Which makes them no worse off than yours.

    97. Re:Hey North Korea! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I think we've come to some fundamentals to disagree on.

      No. Practical victory for the long term required total victory. I think that's the part you're missing.

      Throughout human history conquerors have taken land not through mass or centralized acquiescence but through just enough force to maintain their power. To take the humorous illustration, "we 'aven't got a king / Yes, you have, I am you king, Arthur, King of the Britons. The who? ..." Without modern technology, even Rome couldn't maintain complete and total control of their areas. We live in an era with very new assumptions about power and control, made possible through technology.

      I think your supposition that complete humiliation was necessary to end the war for the long term, and that mere occupation and social restructuring alone would not have succeeded is an interesting hypothesis. But it's only a hypothesis, one with two possible outcomes. A civilized people ought to try the less murderous approach first. After all, these are largely governments fighting governments, not people fighting people.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    98. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Throughout human history conquerors have taken land not through mass or centralized acquiescence but through just enough force to maintain their power.

      Yes, exactly. And bringing them to their knees like that made the force necessary much less than it otherwise would likely have been.

      But it's only a hypothesis, one with two possible outcomes.

      Same with your counter-hypothesis, of course.

      A civilized people ought to try the less murderous approach first.

      First, there were no murders. People keep making this odd error.

      Second, no. You make your best judgment about what will have the fewest casualties in the long term. That is the judgment the U.S. made.

    99. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Japan is constantly trying forget those admissions and begin indoctrinating school children in the glory of the Japanese empire again.

      While there are some (minor) political groups in Japan that try to revise history (ironically, some of the worst have been supported by the US, financially and otherwise), to say that is done by "Japan", implying most of the population and the government, is simply not true.

    100. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Nope, in fact it wasn't. You're either lying, or ignorant. Either way, it is your problem.

    101. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      You're either lying, or ignorant.

      Hey, that's my line!

    102. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      A liar, an ignoramus or both. http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html

    103. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Nope. In fact, I know what I am talking about far better than you do, and I offered nothing remotely similar to a lie.

      You, however, have been duped by revisionists.

      I don't know why you think the Bard memorandum has relevance. Perhaps you think that because we did not give warning, this proves something? You're wrong, of course, although you're welcome to try to argue it.

      I'll even get you started: the argument usually goes something like, "if we wanted them to surrender we would have warned them." The problem is that we did give them many opportunities for a real surrender, and Japan absolutely refused, in all of its public and diplomatic statements. They said they were willing to "surrender" but they made clear they were unwilling for a real surrender, an unconditional one. And after the vicious war of aggression they had waged against us, we could not take the risk of anything less than unconditional surrender.

      There was no reason to think at the time that a warning would have made any difference, and indeed, it might have lessened the effectiveness of the deterrent.

      Our main goal was, and morally must have been, the security of our people. And so no explicit warning was given.

    104. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Whatever. When you disregard the published documents of your own military planners, it is beyond hopeless.

    105. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      When you disregard the published documents of your own military planners ...

      Please do not lie. I disregarded nothing. In fact, I explained how that document doesn't mean that surrender wasn't the point of dropping the bombs.

      If you were intelligent, honest, and thoughtful, you would respond with an argument for how it DOES mean that.

    106. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      As I said, go ahead with whatever story makes you feel good. I have no further interest in arguing with you.

      Btw, nice strawman here: Perhaps you think that because we did not give warning, this proves something?. I suppose it feels good to argue with yourself and win ;)

    107. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      As I said, go ahead with whatever story makes you feel good.

      Looking at actual facts does make me feel good, thanks.

      I have no further interest in arguing with you.

      You never did. You made a claim you didn't support and refused to provide any backing for it.

      Btw, nice strawman here

      You obviously don't know what a "strawman" is. You refused to an offer an argument, and I guessed at what your imagined argument might be. As I explicitly did not attribute it to you, it cannot possibly have been a strawman.

      However, when you said I ignored any documents, you WERE committing the straw man fallacy.

    108. Re:Hey North Korea! by siddesu · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes you're emphatically right. You win all the Internet arguments through sheer persistence. Enjoy your win, I have other things to do.

    109. Re:Hey North Korea! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, yes you're emphatically right. You win all the Internet arguments through sheer persistence. Enjoy your win, I have other things to do.

      No, I won because I provided actual arguments, and you just kept attacking ME.

      That's how it works. HTH.

  8. MASSIVE club thank you! by syousef · · Score: 3, Funny

    You don't understand - you call it your club, the enemy calls it his "Massive Ordinance Penetrator". We both know what you're really referring to and referring to it as heavy as a club, or a massive penetrator doesn't change the fact that you need little blue pills.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:MASSIVE club thank you! by MadKeithV · · Score: 1

      So now we know how all the p3n15 3nl4rg3m3nt pills spammers stay in business - the Pentagon has bought all of them to create their "Massive Ordinance Penetrator".

  9. Paranoia and North Korea by Weedhopper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder what what the North Koreas are going to think when they find out about this.

    The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.

    At some point, they're going to feel really cornered. Then things will get really interesting.

    1. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you really think the generals who run NK really believe their own propaganda about the US invading at any time? They are not nutty, and are actually quite brutally rational. Who else could have gotten sweetheart deal after sweetheart deal from diplomacy? Seriously, look at their history, North Korean diplomats are the Vince Lombardi of the last 20 years. You don't win repeated concessions, break your word, and then go back to the conference table and win again - that's not the actions of a nutbag.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    2. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The tunnel system they had in the border areas is the king showing in their hand. As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.

      As a guy born in a country whose people were similarly demonized just two decades ago (USSR), I have to chime in.

      North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).

      The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.

    3. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by pudge · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good point, except for one thing: they only LOOK like Vince Lombardi because they were up against Carter and Clinton, who gave them those victories. They only have a few offenses and defenses, and so a decent American "coach" would not let them score off it, or would at least limit their scoring.

      Not that I was ever a big fan of Bush, but North Korea is something he got right. Hopefully Obama doesn't screw up the progress we've made over the last few years.

    4. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      They are weapons manufacturers and dealers. They are China's diplomatic sandbox. They have thousands of artillery pieces pointing to Seoul. These are why they still exist. Diplomatically, they are just an embarrassment. They are the most isolated nation in the world, they couldn't get any normal relationship with their neighbors, and the "sweetheart deals" they get are humanitarian help in the form of tons of rice.

      Their artillery blackmail is the only thing that keeps people on the negotiation table, but since 20 years, they got nothing apart increased isolation (self-inflicted, in some cases). They are nutty. Dangerous, yes, but nutty.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    5. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Uh... what exactly did Bush II do "right", except get them to dig their nuclear facilities deeper underground? The Taepodong-2 was built and tested on Bush II's watch.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    6. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I wonder what what the North Koreas are going to think when they find out about this."

      They've known about this for a very long time, rest assured...

    7. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Great post. Mod parent up about +20 for "Has a clue".

      Just because North Korea has a few thousand crazy bastids who rule by the sword (along with bullets, of course) doesn't mean the people are all nucking phutts.

      I'd much rather see a few dozen of those crazy bastids assasinated, than to see hundreds of thousands of North and South Koreans killed in some stupid war. Did I say "much rather"? Actually, it isn't even something a sane person should have to think about.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    8. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Not really a fan of Bush, but what could he have done to prevent it?

      Blame the man for what he is to blame, there's plenty, certainly no shortage, he had more than a fair share of external and internal blunders that would last other presidents a lifetime. But don't blame him for things beyond his control. Be fair, it's not like you have to be unfair to find something to blame him for.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On this subject, a request: could somebody point me towards the political cartoon in which the 'world leaders' are crocodiles/tigers/etc and the people are sheep? The world leaders are saying something like 'people of the world, we cannot control your warlike instincts...'
      Thanks!

    10. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... what is the alternative?

      You're Kimmie. Your goal: Staying in power. Your assets: Guns and ... umm ... enough propaganda to keep your starving, underdeveloped people on this side of the border. Your problems: Bigger enemy guns and if your people ever found out you've been bullshitting them for ages and that the grass is greener south of the border, you're the leader of an empty country.

      Please state your moves.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a guy born in a country whose people were similarly demonized just two decades ago (USSR), I have to chime in.

      North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).

      The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.

      North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan.

      What's your definition of "nutty"? Those Western news reports still show much militancy in the civilian population who buy very heavily into their government's propaganda. I wouldn't fault them for it though, North Korean censorship (attempts to) completely lock out pretty much any foreign influence. Propaganda is practically the only news source for the population.

      I'd also remind you, perhaps if you haven't forgotten, that the country of your birth(USSR) also demonized the people of the USA.

    12. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by chrb · · Score: 1

      As far as a paranoid North Korean is concerned, that was what assured destruction and kept the US from making the first strike. A nutty concern, of course, but let's face it, those North Koreans are a nutty bunch.

      I don't think concerns over a nuclear first strike by the US are "nutty". The US has previously threatened Iran with a nuclear first strike, and I believe they've used very similar language and threats against North Korea. It might not be probable, especially so now that Obama has replaced Bush, but the concept of a US first strike is definitely possible (remember "No options are off the table." in response to the first strike nuke question?)

      And the "Mutually Assured Destruction" of course doesn't apply to the United States - nobody is thinking that N.Korea is a direct military threat to the US (well, apart from some right wing radicals). The MAD concept is applied to N.Korea and S.Korea, not the US.

    13. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Government always has the consent of the people. Unless you spent those years in a gulag, you supported the USSR too.

    14. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2

      Those Western news reports still show much militancy in the civilian population who buy very heavily into their government's propaganda.

      Of course they do. Those "Western news reports" would be pretty boring if they showed a bored, suppressed populace. After all, when was the last time you saw video of average, bored Arabs hanging out in coffee shops? That's right, you don't, you see the screaming nutjobs, because the nutjobs get ratings.

    15. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      My moves :
      1) Stop the nuclear program and divert the resources to agricultural programs
      2) Use the (presumably) millions of political prisoners as forced labors in this program, gradually making their living condition better so that I don't get too much of international condemnation when I want to open up the country
      3) Play a forward-backward dance between South-Korea, China and USA (and maybe Indonesia and Japan as well) in order to stay independent
      4) Get basic economics notion so that industries flowers
      4b) Make several shopping malls on the south of the country opened to south koreans, where dirt-cheap products made in NK are sold.

      A few years later, get the same recognition as some tyrannical kings in Middle East or North Africa, that bother no one and get bothered by none. At this point, you can consider using another transportation than armored train (Kim never flies any plane). Actually, I have the feeling that "playing NK" would be quite easy, but that Kim got caught into his father's and his own propaganda, really believing he is a genius and that his directions can solve every of the country's problem.

      You know, I am really pondering trying to send a letter to Kim's heir, who is about my age...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    16. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by pudge · · Score: 1

      Uh... what exactly did Bush II do "right", except get them to dig their nuclear facilities deeper underground?

      Forced them to the table, brought Russia and China to our side, got them much closer to real concessions than ever before.

      The China thing is probably the biggest one. We cannot act against DPRK without China saying it's OK, and we got China's foreign minister on the lawn of the White House shaking Bush's hand and agreeing that we must have a nuclear free peninsula. That was *huge* and will pay dividends in the future.

      Multilateral talks are the ONLY way forward, and Bush got that done, and got major progress with them, and hopefully Obama doesn't blow it.

    17. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this 'progress' you are referring to?

    18. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Meh. They're a cheap lay, so even though they blow up and freak out every couple of years, it's cheaper to pay 'em off than it is to invade or deal with an attempted invasion.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    19. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What's your definition of "nutty"? Those Western news reports still show much militancy in the civilian population who buy very heavily into their government's propaganda.

      How do you know whether the militancy is genuine, or if it's just a required trait every NK citizen must exhibit at all times lest he be hauled to the labor camps?

      Propaganda is evil stuff, for sure, but you can brainwash people only for so long when they lack the basic necessities (such as, well, food).

      I'd also remind you, perhaps if you haven't forgotten, that the country of your birth(USSR) also demonized the people of the USA.

      I know, though it was the official propaganda of the USSR that did it, not the people themselves. It definitely trickled down somewhat to the masses, but that was still pretty limited.

    20. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Government always has the consent of the people. Unless you spent those years in a gulag, you supported the USSR too.

      Don't confuse "acceptance" and "mandate" here. Very few people are willing to endanger their lives and well-being, as well as that of others they hold dear, to make a political statement of revoking one's "consent". Among other things, even if you do that, you never know if others around you will support it (in which case it might end up as a successful revolution) or not (in which case you just end up in a bullet through your head, in a stadium with a mob cheering the dear leader - even if they all think the same way you do). In any society, the percentage of people who are willing to resist is low, unless they are cornered with no way to retreat (think Warsaw getto uprising... and even that took a while to erupt!).

      That doesn't mean that those people who choose to remain silent and even fake outward acceptance of things as they are consent to being governed that way. Consent under gunpoint isn't the real kind. The real kind you will find out if NK is ever invaded (or a revolution happens from within), when observing the aftermath.

    21. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Another problem: Your father is the eternal leader and idolized, if not deified, glorious figure of the country. Straying from his course of Juche is no option.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    22. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Wow...you really don't know anything about North Korea, do you? As someone else said, every step on that list betrays Kim Il-Song and the Juche legacy, to say nothing of the fact that the generals would revolt as soon as their power was threatened.

      Sure, send a letter to Kim Jong-un, I'm sure his security detail wouldn't think it was a CIA plot. Being the same age and all, certainly two reasonable people like yourselves could come to a compromise. Honestly, these pollyanna solutions baffle me. Are people really this stupid?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by mjwx · · Score: 1

      North Koreans are not "a nutty bunch". They are people just like me and you, and most of them would rather prefer to be left alone and live their lives in peace. Have a good home, marry a nice guy/girl, have kids, that sort of thing. They most definitely don't dream of nuclear clouds over Manhattan. They might be worried about the kind of thing TFA is about, but mostly because they don't want war (which tends to screw people's lives in a major way, especially when you're on the losing side).

      The "nutty bunch" are the country leaders. And keep in mind that your average North Korean most likely doesn't feel the total, overwhelming kind of love towards his dear Glorious Leader that newspapers tell him he should have. By all accounts from tourists who visited NK, people there know how poor and oppressed they actually are, if not in specific things, then at least in general feeling.

      Sir, that is the best post I've read today.

      In Australia we have a very multicultural society and are better off for it. I meet people from different cultures every day and I find out that all our differences are superficial and beyond that we have more in common. I work with a Saudi, I can certainly tell you that he does not represent the stereotypical crazy arab that is portrayed here. I know several Chinese born, most certainly not highly nationalistic communists.

      Nubars who talk about "liberating" North Korea only aids the propaganda lined up against us westerners.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nubars who talk about "liberating" North Korea only aids the propaganda lined up against us westerners.

      I might disappoint you, but if there would be way to liberate (no quotes needed - it is factually correct) North Korea without an all-out, total war on Korean peninsula with casualties on both sides (and mostly civilian) in hundreds of thousands at best, I would be all for it. The existing NK regime is truly revolting, and is one of the worst on this planet. Heck, even if Chinese would take over, it would still be a major improvement!

      Unfortunately, there is no way to do it. And so things stay the way they are - bad, but not as bad as they could be in any other scenario (especially for people of North Korea). That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking for a solution.

      Now, whom I truly despise are people who talk about turning Iraq/Iran/NK/... into a "glass parking lot". Not liberating, but literally wiping the country with its entire population out. If there was ever something deserving the label "hate speech", this would be it.

    25. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I might disappoint you,

      Well you've disappointed me, but not in the way you think Mr AC.

      but if there would be way to liberate (no quotes needed - it is factually correct) North Korea without an all-out, total war on Korean peninsula with casualties on both sides (and mostly civilian) in hundreds of thousands at best, I would be all for it.

      You've completely missed the point, the word "liberate" was in quotes indicating sarcasm. If you honestly believe what you've written then I shouldn't expect you to understand a complex concept like sarcasm anyway. So I'm disappointed that you aren't clever enough to understand my post.

      Here is why you are wrong.

      It is entirely possible to re-unify Korea without any kind of war. No North Korean government (or any government for that matter) will remain the same forever, Kim Jong Il is making plans to step down and put his son in power Kim Jong Un. Now if Un is unable hold a strong government he may face a coup de tat by the military or even resistance from the civilian population. If China were to change its policies on North Korea and change is something the Chinese government is shy about doing then the crutch of support is taken away from North Korea. If the North Korean government is to weaken and fall, do you honestly think that voluntary re-unification is unlikely. Quite the contrary, re-unification is the most likely outcome, Kim Jong Un may voluntarily do it in exchange for amnesty (from what crimes, it doesn't matter, he'll fade into obscurity with half of NK's GDP in his private bank account). Remember East Germany? If you don't it's because it doesn't exist any more. The DDR government couldn't hold itself together against the popularity of re-unification even with the Stasi (and KGB) and North Korea doesn't have any organisation with capabilities even close to matching the Stasi.

      Re-unification without a war is quite possible, in fact it's quite likely. So giving the NK regime propaganda to use against us is the worst thing we can do, it de-popularises re-unification.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    26. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Am I really the one who knows nothing about Juche and NK ? Kim Jong Il already strayed away a lot from Kim Il-Song's legacy, to the point of making the real author of the Juche flee to South Korea. He already authorized many things that were strictly forbidden in Song's time. Moreover, he really seems to have a propaganda on the level of Orwell's 1984. War is Peace, Free Market is Communism. Changing the ideology will be the easiest part. The generals, either believe in the ideology and it says Kim has absolute authority to interpret the Juche, or they don't care about ideology and are cynical enough to understand the objectives stated.

      I know the letter thing has few chances of changing anything, even a slim chance of getting really to him, but I have seen interviews from his classmates (he studied in Switzerland) hinting at some human aspects in the guy (though it was a few days before he tried to murder his older brother).

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    27. Re:Paranoia and North Korea by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      NK works in this way a lot like an old oligarchic corporation. Ever worked for one of those? You get told right from the beginning that everyone is very much fond of free exchange of ideas and how it makes the company great, you get told how many of the current managers grew from within the company and how the company protects and promotes you when you make daring leaps to new markets and how new ideas and pursuing new directions is rewarded and what benefits you may see, and you see all kinds of very "motivational" posters promoting the same ideals.

      Until you try to do it.

      Then you'll find out that everyone is very fond of how it's always been done, that every daring suggestion (i.e. everything you may suggest that might even slightly threaten (not even change, just threaten that it might possibly change) the status quo) gets shot down. Oh, not directly, after all we're all for progress and we're all glad you mention it, but unfortunately we can't do it because the market does not follow, because our structure doesn't support it right now, because we don't have the workforce (and surprisingly it's entirely impossible to get the relevant people, even now), and if everything else fails, SAP doesn't support it.

      But it's nice of you to talk about it.

      Just don't overdo it, after 3-4 times they might get pissed enough at you for causing a ripple in the smooth fabric (aka dust that covers everyone and everything).

      NK works about the same way, it seems. Everyone is very fond of Juche and all the other glorious achivements, and everyone believes very strongly in Kim and his authority over Juche, but only as long as he doesn't cause a ripple or even a change in it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  10. Sorry, South Korea by mindcorrosive · · Score: 1

    I sure hope they are not going to MOP the floor with an unfriendly neighbouring country.

    --
    + 3.14 Transcendental
  11. misinformation by religious+freak · · Score: 0, Troll

    Just because the military says it's under development, doesn't mean it'll make it by then, or that it's true. Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult, but whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness.

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    1. Re:misinformation by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult"

      I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.

      "whenever I see a statement from the military (any military) I automatically question its truthfulness."

      Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:misinformation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the military was working on "Bunker buster" bombs since 2002 IIRC. Vaporware?

    3. Re:misinformation by religious+freak · · Score: 1

      "Granted, this doesn't seem that difficult" I think you are missing the signifgance of the 200ft claim that others have pointed out.

      Quite possibly. In my mind, all you've got to do is make it 30,000 pounds and BOOM! But perhaps it's more complex than that - I dunno, I've never done anything close to building a bomb.

      Agreed, but the only reason to lie about such a "game changer" would be if the US knew, (say via supercomputer sims), that this avenue of bunker busting research was a dead-end. It seems unlikely but if it was the case then the "200ft" lie would be a tempting red-herring for other nations BBB's (Bunker Busting Boffins).

      Either that or it's running behind schedule, and they want to intimidate our adversaries now. I recall certain members of the military stated that we wouldn't go to the moon in hundreds of years (this was about 6-12 months before we did). Misinformation is just part of military planning and execution.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  12. Holey bunkers batman! by Iamthecheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If one of these doesn't do the trick we can make an airplane capable of dropping one, then another on precisely the same spot a minute later. And a third if need be. six hundred feet of penetration! America wins World's Biggest Penatrator award! can you feel that? Take it right in the bunker bab-- sorry. My point is, with this and smart bomb technology at the level America has it, no bunker is safe anymore, not at any depth. This has an immense geopolitical effect. North Korea is going to have to work even harder to hide their programs--and expose them in the process. Iran can no longer feel safe announcing a nuclear bomb should it develope one. And any country that has, in the past, felt less fear of American military might because of conventional equipment being held in deep bunkers will no longer be as eager to put it to the test. With one weapon, America has greatly advanced its interests everywhere the military counts.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My point is, with this and smart bomb technology at the level America has it, no bunker is safe anymore, not at any depth. This has an immense geopolitical effect.

      You bet it does. It sends a strong message to the DPRK military: "Get cracking on your ICBMs, you slackers - what good are your nukes if you can't deliver them?".

      The day the US military starts dropping these things on nuclear-armed states is the day that millions of Americans move to Canada and Mexico.

    2. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by 54mc · · Score: 0

      It seems to me that a nuclear device could do this job just as effectively while weighing a fraction as much. And if we happen to get into a full out nuclear war? Well, nuclear winter should cancel out the effects of global warming, and than we'll be begging for our beloved clunkers back!

      On another note, didn't we just build one of these and brag about how amazing it was a couple years ago? I know this new one is 7,400 lbs heavier, but on something that weighs as much as these, how much difference does that make? (Honestly, I don't know as IANABombExpert)
      Any FBI, DHS, or other agencies, please note this last part.

      --
      Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
    3. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by linhares · · Score: 5, Insightful
      nothing like a good arms race to get juices flowing all around. The dinosaurs had this rock for so long because they were peaceful compared to us hairless chimps.

      Human beings seem to be a poor invention. If they are the noblest works of God where is the ignoblest? - Mark Twain

      There are times when one would like to hang the whole human race, and finish the farce. - Mark Twain

      I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices or caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. Indeed I know it. I can stand any society. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being--that is enough for me; he can't be any worse. - Mark Twain

      The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. - Mark Twain

      Such is the human race. Often it does seem such a pity that Noah and his party did not miss the boat. - Mark Twain

    4. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      My point is, with this and smart bomb technology at the level America has it, no bunker is safe anymore, not at any depth.

      This includes civilian bunkers. If they can get these (and slightly weaker versions of these) to drop in manufacturing price, no need to use Firestorms to kill all civilians from underground bunkers by taking out all the oxygen from the cityblock. This was used in World War 2 when allied bombers destroyed Berlin but this can make it so much easier.

      Just dropping these babies here and there randomly in every bombing reminds civilians that they are no longer safe, anywhere.

      And it's not just civilian bunkers. I'm sure that just one of these to St. Petersburg (world's deepest metro tunnels for underground trains... And they also go under the rivers there) in Russia could flood the whole metro system with water.

      This has an immense geopolitical effect.

      Indeed

      North Korea is going to have to work even harder to hide their programs--and expose them in the process. Iran can no longer feel safe announcing a nuclear bomb should it develope one. And any country that has, in the past, felt less fear of American military might because of conventional equipment being held in deep bunkers will no longer be as eager to put it to the test.

      You really think that any small, poor countries with one or two nuclear weapons that are still in early development stage will care to think "The Americans can bomb everything else here but at least our underground laboratory is safe so it's fine".

      Let's face it: This weapon hasn't been developed to destroy single underground research facilities in poor countries. It has been developed to destroy whole underground infrastructure: Water pipes. Large electrical cables. Fiber networks. Metro tunnels. Bunkers - military and civilian. Etc.

      With one weapon, America has greatly advanced its interests everywhere the military counts.

      I give you that.

      But honestly, even if you are right and there is no more sinister meanings behind this weapon... How in hell could USA know where to drop it? Hell, the intelligence so far hasn't been able to tell whether whole countries even have weapons of mass destruction or not. I doubt that were war to occur the biggest problem would be "We know exactly what they have and where, just can't destroy it" in modern times.

    5. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      It sends a strong message to the DPRK military: "Get cracking on your ICBMs, you slackers - what good are your nukes if you can't deliver them?".

      And we blow up any ICBMs they have that are above, or below, ground.

      <sarcasm>
      Sure you will! And you'll have no problem getting every last one, because they'll all be fixed in place, in plain view, and coated in fluorescent yellow paint. Plus there'll be enormous signs painted on the ground saying "bomb here".
      </sarcasm>
      Alternatively, for a very small investment, your enemies can make it impossible to detect all their nukes. You may be hubristic enough to risk a first strike against a nuclear power, but thank God the US President appears to have a few more clues.

    6. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by iroll · · Score: 1

      There wasn't much left after their counterparts handed massive portions of the country over to government in the name of domestic security that is no more secure than it ever was.

      People willing to trade freedom for security deserve neither, etc. Wait... what was your point?

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    7. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A nuke might do the job, but there are 2 problems:
      1: Technical: A nuke is actually a fairly sensitive weapon, if the soccer ball is disturbed, the nuclear material goes 'fizzle' and just make a big mess. Going through 61m of concrete at Mach 2 tends to be ... disturbing

      2: Political: Even if the problems in "1" can be taken care of, no nation would ever forgive the US for first use of a nuclear weapon. That would then legitimize a nuclear response by the target nation, kill any coalitions, and forever lend backing to rogue nations wanting to make their own nukes. One of the key factors keeping many nations from being too interested is that fact that the nuclear club, since WWII, has shown the restraint of not actually using them.

    8. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The MOAB is not capable of being driven into a bunker I think (Air Burst!). This one's another attempt at developing a bunker buster. A proper nuke would cause a lot of political issues and (ahem!) fallout plus AFAIK there are technical problems with packaging a nuke inside a penetrator case as the warhead is too fragile (very easy to break a warhead and prevent it from properly reaching critical mass) to survive the impact.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It has been developed to destroy whole underground infrastructure: Water pipes. Large electrical cables. Fiber networks. Metro tunnels. Bunkers - military and civilian. Etc.

      It's only needed for hardened targets, i.e. bunkers. Regular bombs have enough power to damage cables and pipes that run maybe 2 meters underground and usually it's harder to avoid wrecking the infrastructure than to break it. Plus if the US really had the goal of annihilating a city they'd just use nukes or carpet bombing, no need for special bunker buster bombs.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by umghhh · · Score: 1

      what on earth have people allegedly stealing from your offspring to do with blasting or not of ICBMs in NK? You should maybe calm down. try reading this before ou continue this line of argument.

    11. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Even if the problems in "1" can be taken care of, no nation would ever forgive the US for first use of a nuclear weapon."

      Well, USA already was the first on using nuclear weapons. Maybe this explains some things.

    12. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      And the day many Canadians and Mexicans start moving AWAY from the US borders.. retaliation is no fun when you're in the blast radius.

    13. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The use of the bomb in World War II was extremely regrettable. Knowing what we do now about the bombs only makes that more apparent. But I don't think Truman or anyone else really knew what those weapons meant for the future of humanity. Hindsight is often 20/20.

      I'm also sure that it is no comfort at all to the hundreds of thousands that died in Hiroshima or Nagasaki that if the bomb hadn't been used then, it would likely have been used later, perhaps in a larger exchange of weapons of greater power. Like the H-bomb. Those hundreds of thousands might have been millions or billions.

      Furthermore, I wonder how many other countries would have spent so much time and effort helping to rebuild and revitalize their former enemies as the United States has done with Japan and Germany.
      The rest of the world does not exactly hold the moral high ground from which to criticize the United States.

      Say what you will about the US, but the US did not fire the first guns of either of the two World Wars.

    14. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The current U.S. President has no fucking clue on anything.

    15. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Um, I'm not an expert on the strategic bombing campaigns conducted by the Allies during world war two, but I don't recall Berlin getting firebombed on the level you described. In fact the event that you described sounds more like what happened in Dresden when the Allies burned the city.

      Also, conventional high-explosive bombs were quite effective at causing damage to utilities during WW2. You don't need a penetration weapon to do that.

      --
      You mad
    16. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, for a very small investment, your enemies can make it impossible to detect all their nukes [englishrussia.com].

      I guess you've never heard of radar and infrared? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that an inflatable rubber "missile" doesn't have the same IR signature and radar cross section that a real missile does.

      You may be hubristic enough to risk a first strike against a nuclear power,

      We wouldn't have to contemplate a first strike if they were behaving according to the norms of civilized world. Civilized nations do not threaten to unleash a nuclear holocaust on a weekly basis. Civilized nations do not send raiding parties into neighboring countries that attempt to assassinate the leaders thereof. Civilized nations do not board and capture ships in international waters.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    17. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The use of the bomb in World War II was extremely regrettable

      You wouldn't think that if you were a GI slated for Operation Downfall or an Allied POW that was getting closer to death from starvation each day that he remained in captivity....

      But I don't think Truman or anyone else really knew what those weapons meant for the future of humanity

      They knew. Read Oppenheimer's writings sometime. Every single person at the Trinity site realized that the world would never be the same again.

      Say what you will about the US, but the US did not fire the first guns of either of the two World Wars.

      Be careful, eventually some clueless jackass who only read the parts of history that conform to his world view will come along and say that we made the Japanese do it (Pearl Harbor) when we cut off their oil. Amazing how they tend to forget that we did that in response to their aggressive actions in China.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    18. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Murgalon · · Score: 1

      What about a bunker in the basement of a skyscraper?

    19. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark Twain has a Slashdot account?

    20. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea we'd never get away with first use of nuclear weapons. Sheesh. If anyone ever used nuclear weapons on this planet, it'd be over for them. No one would ever trade with them again, probably.

    21. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by stonefry · · Score: 1

      Just because it can penetrate 200 ft does not mean that it will leave a 200 ft hole.

    22. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The day the US Military sits on its ass while insane fuckers build and deploy nuclear weapons is the day millions of Americans throw millions of the pussies who have ruined our country out of the US to Canada and Mexico.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    23. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Why do a first strike against a nation capable of delivering a nuclear attack when you can do a last strike just before they are capable of something like that?

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    24. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by pudge · · Score: 1

      There wasn't much left after their counterparts handed massive portions of the country over to government in the name of domestic security that is no more secure than it ever was.

      There's the TSA, which sucks, but is mostly harmless. And what else? If anything the Democrats and left get angry because they didn't hand over MORE of the country to the government: more of first responders, more of shipping, and so on.

    25. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You must not be from the US. Most of the "Americans" living here believe that we are the most horrible nation ever conceived of and the world would be so much better of with us just gone. Sad. I say to the rest of the world. Leave us be. Go speak German.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    26. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by pudge · · Score: 1

      Sure you will!

      Yes.

      Alternatively, for a very small investment, your enemies can make it impossible to detect all their nukes.

      You apparently don't understand how we know where their nukes are. Good thing you're not in charge, eh?

      Further, your statement is wrong on its face anyway: if we did depend exclusively on satellites, and we could see them all through this method (which you imply), then we would still know where all their nukes were: we just wouldn't know which ones were the nukes and which ones weren't. So we'd bomb both. For a large country like Iraq this can be useful; for a small one like DPRK it's just asking for more of your country to be blown up.

      You may be hubristic enough to risk a first strike against a nuclear power, but thank God the US President appears to have a few more clues.

      /me shakes head

      First, there's no risk to us. DPRK can't touch us.

      Second, there's no hubris involved. At all.

      Third, Obama would launch in a second if a. DPRK posed a direct threat to us or its neighbors and b. China would let us.

    27. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by illumin8 · · Score: 1

      nothing like a good arms race to get juices flowing all around.

      You don't know how right you are. Remember those great durable goods numbers that had Wall Street rallying yesterday? Turns out durable goods orders are down, but military weapons orders have picked up the slack. This is typical, the economy sucks, so we need to spend $trillions on defense budgets and start a war with some country to get the economy back on track. I wonder who it will be? Iran? North Korea? Burma?

      --
      "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
    28. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by pudge · · Score: 1

      what on earth have people allegedly stealing from your offspring to do with blasting or not of ICBMs in NK?

      I will answer that, when you or the parent can answer what Americans fleeing to other countries has to do with it.

      You should maybe calm down.

      Impossible. I'd have to be worked up. I'm not.

      try reading this before ou continue this line of argument.

      Um. That fallacy is completely irrelevant to anything I said. Think on.

    29. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Number 3, you forgot number 3!!!!

      It might actually be, you know.....immoral (strange word, new to some here) to use a nuclear weapon first!!!!

      Now I know the military doesn't care about that, whether they should or not may be debatable. But I, the anonymous commentator, do.

    30. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      I guess you've never heard of radar and infrared? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that an inflatable rubber "missile" doesn't have the same IR signature and radar cross section that a real missile does.

      I have no idea, though I don't see why this is necessarily the case. An aluminum lining, a thermostatic heating unit ... why not? But presumably they have some value or the Russians would not actually be using them.

      But the rubber missiles are just one example. The real point is that there's no way you can guarantee detection and location of every last missile. The real missiles could be disguised as oil-tankers, logging trucks; grain silos, clock-towers and other buildings; railway carriages, etc. A successful first strike against a nation armed with nuclear ICBMs would require destroying all of these, just on the off-chance. How long would it take your enemy to start launching? Minutes? Then you have to carpet bomb the entire country in minutes. In other words, the only way to do it is to launch a nuclear first strike and flatten the entire country, incidentally killing millions of people, and exposing billions more to harmful radiation.

      Even if North Korea did pose a threat to the US (which I personally think is laughable, but never mind that for now), how would this "pre-emptive strike" fare in the international community? You think the rest of the world would be happy about it? Put it this way: I wouldn't expect the US dollar to remain that strong.

    31. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Say what you will about the US, but the US did not fire the first guns of either of the two World Wars."

      Of course not they had some good old fashioned profiteering to do first! They only entered the war when attacked themselves, not for any alturistic reasons.

    32. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      We wouldn't have to contemplate a first strike if they were behaving according to the norms of civilized world.

      Try putting yourself in their shoes. Their enemies are contemplating a first strike against them - will they perceive that as civilized? You can say you "have" to consider attacking them because they're uncivilized, but looked at from their perspective, your threats to attack are just as uncivilized as anything you might say about them. Especially considering that US troops have fought against them in Korea, and US bombs have destroyed their cities in the past, whereas the reverse is not the case.

      Civilized nations do not threaten to unleash a nuclear holocaust on a weekly basis.

      Actually, North Korea's military doctrine includes the commitment not to use nuclear weapons first. Whereas the military doctrine of the United States of America does envisage first-use of nukes (and always has). Interestingly, the Soviet Union in the early days of the Cold War had a first-use doctrine (certainly during the early part of Kruschev's regime), but the doctrine was later revised to preclude nuclear first strikes (and I think this was even under Kruschev, but it could have been during Brezhnev's time). After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian military doctrine remained essentially the same in this respect until 2000, when it was changed to something like the current American doctrine (is this the "civilizing" influence of the USA?).

      Civilized nations do not send raiding parties into neighboring countries that attempt to assassinate the leaders thereof.

      ... like Fidel Castro and Patrice Lumumba, you mean?

    33. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      You can thank our public schools and academia for that.

      I welcome the Great Depression II that this administration is leading. It's a welcoming bitchslap back to reality that America so desperately needs. Maybe then people will realize that America wasn't so bad after all in years past. Now THAT'S change I can believe in!!!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    34. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      A successful first strike against a nation armed with nuclear ICBMs would require destroying all of these, just on the off-chance. How long would it take your enemy to start launching?

      Why would we hit them first if we didn't have good cause to believe that they were about to hit us? If we did have good cause to believe that then it's arguably better to hit them first and take out most of missiles than allow them all to be launched. Personally I'd rather see one North Korean ICBM headed our way than five.

      Even if North Korea did pose a threat to the US (which I personally think is laughable, but never mind that for now)

      You probably wouldn't find it laughable if you lived in Guam, Hawaii or Alaska. Think the Americans living those regions regard our research into missile defense as a waste of money?

      how would this "pre-emptive strike" fare in the international community? You think the rest of the world would be happy about it?

      If the choice is between pissing off the rest of the world and losing one or more American cities then I'm going to select option A for the win.

      I wouldn't expect the US dollar to remain that strong.

      You really think the rest of the world is going to abandon their trading relationships over us if we took out North Korea's weapons systems? I find it unlikely. You are also ignoring the fact that we have the capability to largely disarm them with conventional weaponry -- no nukes required. Why else do you think we've stationed B-1s and B-2s in Guam? For show?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    35. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      Why would we hit them first if we didn't have good cause to believe that they were about to hit us? If we did have good cause to believe that then it's arguably better to hit them first and take out most of missiles than allow them all to be launched.

      You mean like the "good cause" that Colin Powell had to believe that Saddam's WMD were a threat?

      Even if North Korea did pose a threat to the US (which I personally think is laughable, but never mind that for now)

      You probably wouldn't find it laughable if you lived in Guam, Hawaii or Alaska. Think the Americans living those regions regard our research into missile defense as a waste of money?

      I don't know; there are probably some Americans living there who feel threatened by North Korea. They may well regard missile defense as a good thing, too, for all I know. It would be a delusion though - North Korea is definitely not going to launch a nuclear first strike against any US territory. That would be the utmost folly, and people who think it might come to pass (because Kim Jong-Il is "mad") are IMHO victims of their own government's war propaganda.

      If the choice is between pissing off the rest of the world and losing one or more American cities then I'm going to select option A for the win.

      But in fact the choice isn't between those two options - in fact, option B is a ludicrous scenario. The choice is actually between pissing off the rest of the world and NOT pissing off the rest of the world.

      You really think the rest of the world is going to abandon their trading relationships over us if we took out North Korea's weapons systems? I find it unlikely.

      I'd find that unlikely too, and if you read my message more carefully you'd see that's not what I said.

      You are also ignoring the fact that we have the capability to largely disarm them with conventional weaponry -- no nukes required.

      No I don't think this is true... at least not without taking signifant losses in retalation, at least to US troops stationed in the South.

    36. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      You mean like the "good cause" that Colin Powell had to believe that Saddam's WMD were a threat?

      I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously if you are going to insist on turning this into a political rant about the prior administration. My point was that if we had good cause to believe that North Korea was about to launch a nuclear strike on American soil (or that of any of our allies for that matter) we'd be perfectly justified in attacking them first. If you are going to question that "good cause" when it hasn't even happened because you are still bitter about the GWB administration then I think you need to step back and gain some perspective.

      That would be the utmost folly, and people who think it might come to pass (because Kim Jong-Il is "mad") are IMHO victims of their own government's war propaganda.

      People who think we shouldn't take steps to prepare for that possibility and to defend our citizens are delusional flower children with no concept of how the world really works. Governments don't always make logical and rational decisions. Was it rational for the Japanese to go to war with their largest trading partner whom had nine times their GDP, twice their population and the resources with which to utterly crush them? Was it logical for Argentina to start a war they couldn't win with the British? Was it logical for the Arab states to try and defeat Israel on the battlefield?

      I hope to god that you are right and Kim Jong-Il is a rational man but it would be extremely stupid not to take steps to defend ourselves should he or those around him prove to be batshit insane.

      But in fact the choice isn't between those two options - in fact, option B is a ludicrous scenario. The choice is actually between pissing off the rest of the world and NOT pissing off the rest of the world.

      It's a ludicrous scenario right now. In a week, month or year it might not be. I'm not advocating that we attack North Korea. I'm just advocating that we prepare for the possibility and take steps (i.e: continue to invest in and deploy our missile defense system while deploying offensive assets to the Pacific that can destroy the North Korean nuclear capability should the need arise) to defend ourselves from them. Or would you rather wait until they have the capability to vaporize Los Angeles before we take steps to make it harder for them to do so?

      No I don't think this is true... at least not without taking signifant losses in retalation, at least to US troops stationed in the South.

      Then you don't understand how modern military campaigns are conducted or what the respective capabilities of the two forces are. In any event, the choice is between Honolulu being on the front lines and our troops in South Korea being on the front lines is not a hard one to make.

      There's also another matter that neither of us have mentioned in this discussion. The fact that North Korea has a history of sharing their weapons technology with other rouge nations (Pakistan and Burma) and stateless actors. As far as I'm concerned we should ignore their bluster about "we'll consider that an act of war" and shut down the little bit of trade they have remaining with the rest of the world. If they are as rational as you seem to think they are then what do we have to lose? Surely they won't start a war they can't win over a ship being boarded, will they?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    37. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously if you are going to insist on turning this into a political rant about the prior administration.

      Dude, it's got nothing to do with GWB personally - my point is that US military intelligence on the WMD capabilities of other countries has been proven in actual practice to be unreliable. That's an undeniable fact isn't it?

      In which case talk of "good cause to believe" is a bit of pie in the sky IMHO.

      In any case, it's not really the technical military capability that's at issue with North Korea - they undoubtedly do have WMD and have made no secret of it - they've announced it announced it again, and openly tested 2 nuclear devices. Again, this is indisputable. They've also launched ballistic missiles into the Pacific. Maybe their ICBMs aren't entirely ready just yet, but it's just a matter of time before they do have a capability to nuke a target anywhere in the globe. At most a couple of years. What's really at issue is whether their theoretical capability (and let's assumme they already had a small fleet of ICBMs) is actually a military threat to the US. My point is that it would not be a threat. They are not - ever - going to nuke the US for the same reason that the USSR never nuked the US (despite being far better armed than the DPRK will ever be). The only circumstance in which it could make sense would be in response to a first strike by the US. That is in fact what their nuclear arsenal is for - it's the same reason the Chinese and Russians have one - Mutually Assured Destruction.

      Actually I'm sure the Pentagon strategists know it, too. The issue for the the US government isn't North Korea's "threat". That, as I said before, is just the face the State Dept like to put on it. The issue is nuclear proliferation per se. They don't want other states to acquire nukes - in general - because that's a strategic threat to US military hegemony. At present the US enjoys an enormous military superiority over every other state, but far more so over non-nuclear-armed states. The US can threaten Iran, or Iraq, or Venezuela, or whoever, and be taken seriously, but they can't threaten China or Russia. The Koreans have nukes but not yet a credible strategic rocket force, so they are still being brow-beaten (irrespective of administrations).

      The US is trying to get them to drop their WMD program altogether (like Libya was forced to). But the US negotiators have never agreed to the North Korean's quid pro quo. The Koreans have consistently demanded a peace treaty and security guarantees and the US side has refused, saying that the Koreans must disarm first. That's the historical fact of the matter. Obviously the Koreans will not disarm first, so the options are either (1) that the US accepts their conditions and concludes a formal end to the Korean War, (2) launches a first strike against them, or (3) continues to bluster and threaten but eventually accepts them into the nuclear club. I hope that the first option comes to pass, but the third option is also good IMHO.

      A war with North Korea would be a disaster for the US. The Koreans might take millions of casualties, but the US side would take a serious hit too. Who knows? The Koreans might well decide to drop their "no first use of nukes" policy if push came to shove, which would put paid to the US troops in the South. And the US would take an enormous hit politically and economically. China would be extremely pissed off in particular, and the US is now enormously dependent on China, as I'm sure you know.

    38. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Paua+Fritter · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned we should ignore their bluster about "we'll consider that an act of war" and shut down the little bit of trade they have remaining with the rest of the world.

      You're comfortable with the US breaching its signed commitment not to do so? Breaching the formal armistice agreement would be quite literally an act of war, in law.

    39. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      They are not - ever - going to nuke the US for the same reason that the USSR never nuked the US (despite being far better armed than the DPRK will ever be). The only circumstance in which it could make sense would be in response to a first strike by the US.

      Did you ignore everything I said about countries not always being rational when it comes time to decide whether or not they want to go to war?

      They don't want other states to acquire nukes - in general - because that's a strategic threat to US military hegemony

      Actually it's a strategic threat to the entire world. That's the whole reason the NPT was willingly entered into by the vast majority of the civilized nations on this rock. If North Korea arms itself with a creditable nuclear force then Japan is going to go nuclear. If Japan goes nuclear then China is going to get pissed off and start building more and better weapons systems. If that happens Japan (and Taiwan, Australia, Russia, etc) will have to accelerate her own arms build up. There are many ways such a regional arms race could end but few of them are good.

      The Koreans have nukes but not yet a credible strategic rocket force, so they are still being brow-beaten (irrespective of administrations).

      They wouldn't be getting 'brow-beaten' if they weren't oppressing their people and regularly threatening to turn their neighbors into a lake of fire.

      China would be extremely pissed off in particular, and the US is now enormously dependent on China

      No more so than they are on us. I wish people would at least learn the facts of the situation before they repeat this line. The Chinese-American relationship is one of mutual dependence.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:Holey bunkers batman! by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Oh, and since I missed one:

      that the US accepts their conditions and concludes a formal end to the Korean Wa

      Umm, you can't even pay attention to history that's less than a decade or two old, can you? Bill Clinton concluded agreements with North Korea. They then went back on those agreements. How the hell do you conclude an agreement with a nation that refuses to honor them?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  13. Atmosphere Risk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this powerful enough to do us volcano style? --Debris from the impact site rising back up to the sky in a cone until it hits the atmospheric barrier and falls back to the ground ten thousand miles away?

    One could ASSUME they know what they're doing with these things, but something tells me these weren't exactly designed by the Manhattan Project team (who managed to irradiate themselves anyway).

    1. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      30,000 pounds is 15 tons. That's 1000 times less than even a very small nuke.

    2. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      30,000 pounds is 15 tons. That's 1000 times less than even a very small nuke.

      Err ... no. _Very small_ nukes go down well into the sub-kiloton range.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

    3. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by vipw · · Score: 2, Informative

      The "ton" rating they use on nuclear explosives is the TNT equivalent, not the weight. TNT equivalent is an energy measurement (4.184 x 10^9 Joules).

      This bomb has 15 tons of mass, but only 2.65 tons of conventional explosives. The Davy Crockett linked by Ihlosi only weighs 51 lbs.

    4. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      Obviously the total mass of the bomb puts an upper limit on its "TNT equivalent", assuming that whatever explosives it contains are roughly equivalent to TNT. My point was that this bomb is much less powerful than even the smallest nuke. Its use won't have any global geological or climatic implications.

    5. Re:Atmosphere Risk? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Also, they don't use TNT in bombs, so I wonder what the "TNT equiv" load would be for this.

  14. I'd recommend the Department of Denfense... by viraltus · · Score: 1

    To sell it as a tool to avoid asteroids to destroy Earth, more politically correct... and Hollywood can make a movie too.

    --
    Dear /. CENSORS that set people's Karma to Neutral when you disagree with them: FUCK YOU!!
  15. Massive Ordnance Penetrator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now that was a good porn movie.

    1. RE: Massive Ordnance Penetrator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gives new meaning to the term "MOPping up."

  16. Good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    bomb them from high altitudes don't send troops!

  17. Space weapons? by TapeCutter · · Score: 0, Troll

    N. Korea's regime is a puss-filled boil on the face of humanity but I don't think it's an "appropriate approach" to use an international treaty as toilet paper just to give their tin-pot dictator a taste of reality.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Space weapons? by fractoid · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the OST just forbids warheads in orbit. This lead to the development of the F.O.B.S. by Russia. The SALT II agreement was then instituted, which among other things forbids "systems for placing into Earth orbit nuclear weapons or any other kind of weapons of mass destruction, including fractional orbital missiles", but that seems targeted at launch vehicles for warheads, which may not include purely passive kinetic weapons.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Space weapons? by umghhh · · Score: 1
      why not - paper is good if it can deliver but f I understand TFA correctly the papa (of all bombs) is not a nuclear device and it is delivered from a bomber (B2 or B52 are expected to be papa-capable) so I see nothing that connects treaty you mentioned with the case but I am sure t here is a treaty that forbids bombing NK and Iran. I am equally sure diplomats can always find a loophole however - they find out that the words used meant something completly different than thought till now etc, maybe even before the papa ia actually used :)

      In any case I see no reason not to bomb the NK rulers to ashes. That seems the only language that they understand. The only problem I can see is that the defenders of democracy and human rights in Kremlin and in Beijing have nukes at their disposal and they seem to be good friends with Iran and NK which means that US military would have t o deal with all of them at once which I doubt it will dare do.

  18. Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by RobHart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. Barnes Wallis (of the bouncing "Dam Buster" bomb fame) designed a 5 tonne bomb (Tallboy) in 1943. The larger 10 tonne bomb (Grand Slam) was introduced in early 1945. It was dropped from a Lancaster bomber (by 617 squadron - the Dam Buster squadron) from about 20,000 ft and was close to sonic (320 m/s) when it hit the ground. It was designed as a penetrator, only detonating when well underground. It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations. The Grand Slam used 4,144 kg of explosives (Torpex)which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD with an earth penetration design depth of 40m. I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load. It is interesting to note that (as with much British technology) design data for the Grand Slam was shared with the US and a US version was made, but not (as far as I am aware) used in WWII. RobHart

    1. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD

      It's very possible that the numbers released by the US DoD are not real. Would you want the enemy to plan accurately?

    2. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      Barnes Wallis' Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs had one big problem: delivery accuracy. The somewhat poor aerodynamic shape of the bomb and the fact you had to rely on the accuracy of a visual bombsight meant the CEP for the Grand Slam was a several hundred feet even with the bomb dropped from 20,000 feet from modified Avro Lancaster bombers. The new MOP--which weighs some 8,000 lb more than even Grand Slam--is a far more effective at its task, since it relies on GPS satellite positioning like the JDAM bomb and because of its weight, can penetrate far deeper into the ground, which means the penetration effect and the "earthquake" effect from the deep-pentrating impact will far more likely destroy the target.

    3. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by jstults · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is really a reinvention and extension of 1940's British technology. ... It was used with devastating effect against the German U Boat pens, canals, bridges and viaducts where the "earthquake" effect of a deep explosion undermined foundations.

      Those U-boat pens had nothing on the massive, layered earth and concrete protection of modern 'hard and deep' targets: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/natanz-imagery.htm

    4. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by dasunt · · Score: 1

      The Grand Slam used 4,144 kg of explosives (Torpex)which is considerably more than the heavier bomb proposed by the US DoD with an earth penetration design depth of 40m. I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load.

      Guidance systems have been much improved since WWII.

      More precise targetting results in a smaller payload needed.

    5. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load. It is interesting to note that (as with much British technology) design data for the Grand Slam was shared with the US and a US version was made, but not (as far as I am aware) used in WWII. RobHart

      I'd expect that with modern computer simulations, we (the US) are able to better determine the minimum explosives needed to get the job done. As many posts as there are about the US's lack of peacefulness, we do tend to spend a lot of design time on weapons that don't destroy more than is necessary.

      We wouldn't want to cause a tsunami or crack the foundations of buildings in Seoul in the course of protecting South Korea.

    6. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I believe the overall weight of the thing is what they mean. I believe that was over 13,000 kilos (30,000 lbs.). The explosive is less, probably because they want deeper penetration. Also, there are other explosives out there now that would be better to use than Torpex, but you are right about where the concept started. A Grand Slam might have weighed 22,000 lbs. or about 10,000 kilos although the Grand Slam had more explosive in it. POP SCI just said it was the largest and by most measures it is by a little.

    7. Re:Barnes Wallis Reinvented...again! by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      >>I would imagine that the higher impact speed of the US bomb requires a much stronger casing, but I am surprised at the small ordinance load.

      1. Ke=MV^2
      2. The shape, proportions, materials, and thus payload are determined by the secant ogive of the penetrator nose. Small apparent differences could scale the weight beyond the limits of our bombers.
      3. The kinetic energy released is a big part of the destructive power; the heavy casing, pound for pound, is more effective than an equal weight of explosives.
      4. Modern explosives are more powerful in certain ways than WW2 explosives.

      So in a nutshell what I mean is that something with enough KE to dig 200 feet underground will cause massive damage from the inert casing alone. And- A bomb with, say, 10,000 lbs explosive charge would require an obscenely heavy casing, and would not reach terminal velocity when dropped from our bombers' altitudes (thus the weight is wasted potential energy).

      I have seen what our 90's-era bunker busters can do firsthand, and for better or worse I have great trust in the people designing new ones.

      I had some really good pictures apropos this discussion but that website was taken down.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  19. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one would like to welcome our new overlords wielding bombs of mass penetration.

  20. Old Idea, updated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This weapon is pretty much the sequel to the 1940's Tallboy / Grandslam bombs. The bombs designed back then were huge and cumbersome, and were used to destroy hardened targets (sounds familiar...). I was actually wondering when the DoD would come around to re-using this weapon idea for 21'st century warfare. This new weapon will likely be a Tallboy with a JDAM guidance package on it.

    I question the wisdom of spending money on such expensive weapons that perform such a singular function as destroying deep, hardened targets. This project seems like the kind of white elephant that the MOAB project was (i.e. another giant weapon that had limited value outside of shock and awe).

    For those with historical interest:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_boy

  21. Didn't we see those... by Hymer · · Score: 1

    ...during WW2 ? I'm quite sure I've heard something about Lancasters modified to carry 10000kg bombs against big German u-boot & V2 bunkers. Those bombs were also ment to penetrate whatever they hit and explode. They were called "Earthquake bombs", there were two types: "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam".

  22. Yay! by miffo.swe · · Score: 0, Troll

    Now the US can bomb even more civilian bunkers to bits than they did in the Iraq war!

    The constant aggression from the US is the biggest reason theese countries tries to get nuclear arms.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  23. Translation to metric by johannesg · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is important since all the receiving parties are using the metric system, and you wouldn't want them to be confused about this.

    "Published reports today say the Pentagon is rattling swords in the direction of North Korea and Iran by speeding the development a 6 m, 14968 kg bomb known as Massive Ordnance Penetrator. This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development) up to 61 m underground. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which has overseen the development of this monster since 2007, says it is designed to be carried aboard B-2.21 and B-53.638 bombers and deployed at high altitudes, from which it would strike the ground at speeds well beyond twice the speed of sound to penetrate the below-ground target." Reuters has more specifics on the MOP's chances for deployment by 2010, and the detail that the bomb's load of explosives weighs in at 2404 kg.

  24. Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grand Slam

    A 22,000lb bomb, dropped by the RAF in the closing stages of WW2, known as the "Earthquake Bomb", and carried by Lancaster Bombers.

    Scaling it up to.30,00lb seems a little unambitious.

    1. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My guess is that this is as much a copy of GrandSlam as the B-2 is a copy of Avro Lancaster, only slightly scaled up.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      My guess is that this is as much a copy of GrandSlam as the B-2 is a copy of Avro Lancaster, only slightly scaled up.

      It's actually a copy of the Ho-229/Go-229, only slightly scaled up. *SCNR*

    3. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. SO, you really think that a 1990's B2 that delivers bombs is a scaled up copy of a 1940's wooden flying wing prototype? Or do you think that they share a fleeting similarity in design and that more likely the B2 is a MUCH MORE ADVANCED aircraft that only shares a similar look and purpose? And if so, then perhaps the MOH is a MUCH MORE ADVANCED bomb that simply shares a similar purpose to the 1940's Grandslam?

    4. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I expect they'll use 617 squadron to deliver it too

    5. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wait... are you serious?

    6. Re:Its just a copy of Grand Slam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well - the B2 will be performing the same role of the Lancaster, its a functional equivalent (get the bomb to the right place at the right height and let it go). Physically and aerodynamically, the MOP is pretty well identical to Grand Slam so I guess its just a case of the Yanks going down the "Hollywood remake" route once more.

      As for the name; "Massive Ordnance Penetrator"? No fucking imagination at all!

  25. Well it's not really that much... by XDirtypunkX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They should write it's power output in terms of sun, in which case it looks really puny next to nuclear. For example, the Tsar Bomba (largest human utilized explosive device, which was detonated at half the possible yield to prevent fallout) actually got into whole number percentages:
    "Since 50 Mt is 2.1*10^17 joules, the average power produced during the entire fission-fusion process, lasting around 39 nanoseconds, was about 5.4*10^24 watts or 5.4 yottawatts. This is equivalent to approximately 1.4% of the power output of the Sun.[9]" (Wikipedia).

    1. Re:Well it's not really that much... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      This is equivalent to approximately 1.4% of the power output of the Sun.

      Hm. Suppose that aliens a few hundred lightyears away have their telescopes pointed at us in a few hundred years, could they detect the test? 1/100 of the power of the sun, albeit just for a few nanoseconds, sounds fairly significant.

    2. Re:Well it's not really that much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there were sufficiently advanced aliens out there close enough to us, they'd have heard our radio waves long ago, and they would have responded (via radio). (Cue various conspiracy theories/jokes about how the aliens hate us for whatever reason). Chances are that any other inhabited planets (if they exist at all) are simply too remote or too primitive (remember, of all the species that have ever been on our planet, we're the only ones advanced enough to have radios or telescopes, and it took millions of years for us to get to that point).

    3. Re:Well it's not really that much... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      question, is it only the surface of the sun thats on fire/hot/fissioning ? afterall gravity strength decreases as you move towards the centre of the star (ignoring pressure).

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    4. Re:Well it's not really that much... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      question, is it only the surface of the sun thats on fire/hot/fissioning ?

      No, it's the other way round. The fusion reactions happen deep inside the sun (where it's hot enough), but we can only see the outer layers because they emit visible light.

    5. Re:Well it's not really that much... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I would expect not, the sun takes about 3 microseconds to release an equivalent amount of energy (39 nanoseconds * 100 / 1.4 = 2.786 microseconds), and then there is also the fact that the earth would have blocked much of the universe from seeing the blast (vaguely, ~half of it).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    6. Re:Well it's not really that much... by GlobalEcho · · Score: 1

      Wrong way around. The rate is 1.4% that of the sun, so the sun takes 1.4% of 39ns to emit the same energy. Thus, the sun requires 39000 picoseconds x 0.014, or about 500 picoseconds to emit that energy.

    7. Re:Well it's not really that much... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Well it's not really that much... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. I heard Khrushchev told the military no when they wanted to build a bomb that would wipe out the whole earth. The plan was that if the US initiated a first strike, then they would just wipe everything out. I think it was to be as big as a super tanker. Even the Russians thought this was crazy, but I have heard that it really is possible.

      http://www.rense.com/general40/dooms.htm

      It's called a WTD. Weapon of Total Destruction. Now that's a big bomb.

    9. Re:Well it's not really that much... by hellop2 · · Score: 1

      That's a whole yotta watts.

      --
      How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    10. Re:Well it's not really that much... by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      Then we should manufacture thousands of these 100mt bombs, and use them to send morse code to aliens by detonating 50 of them at once for a dot, and 100 of them for a dash.

  26. Political bullshit by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1, Troll

    This kind of bomb is pure stupidity. Remember the MOAB? Pure stupid. This is macho jock thinking, military style. "Mine's bigger than yours!" Pure political bullshit.

    We already have bombs big enough to destroy almost anything above ground. As for underground targets - well, I've been convinced by a number of people that even a nuke may not take out a hardened underground bunker if it's buried 100 feet or more. Both Korea and Iran have terrain in which a bunker might be much deeper than 500 feet.

    Follow the link, and read the first sentence: "the Pentagon is rattling swords". That one phrase in the first sentence sums it all up.

    Well, I guess they have to make up for other inadequacies in some way.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Political bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually bunkers of any depth may be hit provided the exact location is known. By using a series of massive bombs like a chaingun uses bullets to carve/punch its way through massive obstructions (armor or concrete) the deep bunker will eventually be hit.It is costly and time consuming but absolutely possible.

      A current example is Israel that already has exact coordinates of all the relevant deep underground bunkers in Iran where they work on their nuclear bomb and store their plutonium. The details of the strike plan is obviously secret but it is known that these bunkers, along with the public 'civilian' nuclear power plants, are primary targets. If Israel do carry it out, it is clear that an objective is to cause the plutonium to become vaporized and spread over a large area, both to make cleanup extremely hazardous and to cause significant problems for the population. It would be a huge setback for Irans nuclear program from which it probably wouldn't recover.

    2. Re:Political bullshit by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      MOAB was designed as a ground-level explosive device to destroy targets over a large area. MOP, on the other hand, is designed with the same philosophy as Barnes Wallis' Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs, though with modern GPS guidance for a circular error of probabilty under 30 feet and much deeper ground penetration than Grand Slam could ever achieve.

    3. Re:Political bullshit by cffrost · · Score: 1

      (Note: I am not a weapons or military expert).

      High-yield conventional weapons can be used against targets that would have previously required tactical nukes to destroy. In doing so, the enemy is not given justification to retaliate with WMDs, or escalate into larger-scale nuclear combat. My guess is that there's also a public relations advantage in avoiding the use of nuclear weapons on the battlefield; large conventional weapons may provide that flexibility.

      I am not disputing your point about 500'-deep bunkers, but I believe that there must be targets against which MOPs would prove optimal, or at least provide an effective non-nuclear alternative.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    4. Re:Political bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, but, what about the spin-off value? This technology will revolutionize the strip mining industry, and think of how much faster we'll be able to pop the tops off those pesky mountains of coal in Appalachia?

      Additionally, no one in the areas where these ordinance are used in place of conventional explosives will be able to speak for all the shock and awe, so complaints from environmentalists or civil rights activists will dwindle to nil. That should make the conservatives happy.

      Oh, one question... what exactly is it we are trying so desperately to conserve, anyway?

    5. Re:Political bullshit by kill+-9+$$ · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess they have to make up for other inadequacies in some way.

      Well it is called the "Massive Ordanance Penatrator". Sounds like there's some insecurities somewhere...

      --

      -- A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard
    6. Re:Political bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incredibly stupid. It's correct that a nuke may not reach underground bunkers - THIS THING WILL. That's the entire fucking point, moron. You have bombs big enough to destroy almost anything above ground, and a great big gap in your ability to kill underground structures. This bomb fills that gap and thereby performs an incredibly legitimate tactical and strategic role.

  27. First by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    Let them fix their economy first; military whatevers are not the solution to that.

    1. Re:First by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Let them fix their economy first; military whatevers are not the solution to that.

      Indeed, But wars are an effective distraction from economic problems.

  28. The new oxymoron? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Just what is a "civilian bunker"? Does someone sell tickets to wars and battles now, and the civilian bunkers are where all the spectators sit? I see two possibilities here. Either, A: you have no idea what you are talking about, or B: you didn't say what you meant to say. Please, if there is a third possibility, educate me.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:The new oxymoron? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Just what is a "civilian bunker"?

      Ever heard of air raid shelters?

    2. Re:The new oxymoron? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

      Its pretty common that civilian shelters/bunkers are bombed. In fact it happened multiple times in the iraq war. Thats what this bomb will be used for amongst other fine things. Its pretty hard to know how a bunker is used if you dont have people on the ground that can confirm a bunker is used for military purpouses and not as a shelter.

      http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1049327.html

      --
      HTTP/1.1 400
    3. Re:The new oxymoron? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Air raid shelter != bunker. The vast majority of air raid shelters amount to a basement, under a building, which is considered to be safer than wandering about the streets while bombs are exploding. Unless, of course, the building you are sheltering under happens to take a direct hit.

      A BUNKER, on the other hand, was constructed with a military purpose in mind. At the least, it provides good shelter from small explosives and small arms fire, and probably machine gun fire. A hardened bunker will shrug off most bombs, which is the reason penetrators were created.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:The new oxymoron? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Alright - good point, maybe. Except, I personally don't believe that Saddam Hussein ever built one single bunker for the safety of his people. Anything built by Hussein was for his personal protection, his family's protection, or the military's use.

      Now, I'd like you to consider that particular story. A couple stealth bombers delivered the bombs used in that hit. Stealth. Iraq didn't know they were coming, and even if they did somehow spot them, there wasn't time to pack hundreds of civilians into the shelter.

      Conclusion? If there were hundreds of people inside of the bunker, they were military, and they were going about some military business. I'll put my money on the US' claim that it was a command center. This particular strike is quite different from other incidents in which civilian warehouses and apartment buildings were struck. Remember the powdered milk warehouse, for example? That one was ultra stupidity, on our part. Criminally stupid, actually.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:The new oxymoron? by TheDugong · · Score: 1

      Being old enough to remember that war quite well (I actually went on my first holiday sans parents on the day it broke out.... to Turkey of all places), those individual bombs may have been delivered by stealth, but Bagdhad was under 24/7 air attack at that point so it is highly likely that civilians were making use of said facilities.

    6. Re:The new oxymoron? by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      I've never seen one 200 feet underground

    7. Re:The new oxymoron? by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      "I'll put my money on the US' claim"

      Yeh because we all know US intelligence is always right.

      WMD anyone?

    8. Re:The new oxymoron? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Let's not be pissy, alright? I already pointed out that our intel community can be frigging idiots. I said that in this particular case, I believed my government's claims. Check out my posts in the political forum at mauisun.org starting months before the invasion of Iraq. Or, you can double check what the intel community said independently. The intel community told George Bush that Iraq had almost no WMD capability, and that they had no ties to Al Queda. Don't confuse the failure of the administration with failure of the intel community. George Bush acted in spite of everything that the CIA told him, then spent years trying to twist CIA reports to fit his agenda. ;-)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  29. What Boutros-Ghali has to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "My name is Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
    Put down your guns and listen to Bob Marley!"

  30. Unwinnable? by blind+biker · · Score: 1

    I don't think the Pentagon can win this "arms race" the conventional way. Even if they develop this ordinance, all the Iranians or N. Koreans have to do is add a few meters of armored concrete on top of their existing underground structures. Sure, expensive, but it doesn't compare to the R&D cost to develop a larger ordinance, including guidance and.. well, at a certain size it will become impossible to deliver to destination.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Unwinnable? by gtall · · Score: 1

      As someone else above noted, the first may only go 200ft underground, the second will go the next 200ft, rinse, and repeat as often as necessary. You forget precision targeting. I hear the U.S. has gotten pretty good at that recently.

    2. Re:Unwinnable? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      LOL... Haven't seen too many bomb craters, huh?

      In Iraq I worked out of hardened aircraft shelters that the yugoslavians built for saddam in the 80's. I have pics but none of the are online... OK here's one from google.

      http://www.ausairpower.net/Balad-AFB-HAS-2S.jpg

      The round satellite dish on top is ~15 feet tall, for perspective. The entire structure is concrete reinforced (And I mean reinforced as in 2-inch steel bar set 2 inches apart in layers 12 inches apart, and all welded).

      So on the inside you're looking up at 30-45 feet of armor depending on where you stand (the ceilings are vaulted). When we invaded, we dropped one penetrator per shelter, completely destroying everything inside (airplanes), and leaving a nice round ten-feet diameter hole through all that expensive armor.

      That was done with 2000 lb bombs. These bad boys right here:
      http://www.centaf.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/011022-F-2034C-010.jpg

      A shelter could survive 200 feet underground from a air- or surface-burst nuke. That's why we build penetrators to take us down to 200 feet, and more specifically penetrators with conventional charges so we can test them without violating treaties. The people who build these things are very good at what they do.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  31. This penetrates 130 feet of moderately hard rock. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's like dropping it onto the roof of a 12 story building made entirely out of moderately hard rock, and having it end up in the basement.

  32. Not recon...Diplomacy by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon. And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB. If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks. You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

    --
    One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    1. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      and it is exactly why you got on iraq and not on other nations. because war is a question of money, not of rights. iraq had the best return on investment.

    2. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barney Fife only carried one bullet, and Andy made him carry it in his shirt pocket. I don't think he ever used it.

      I think you are thinking of someone else.

    3. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by rayvd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Years of diplomacy (UN inspections and such) were tried with Iraq after the first gulf war.

    4. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.

    5. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by aepervius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

      And NK is still standing on their corner undisturbed, whereas Iraq and Afghanistan were steam rolled. So what does this tell me ? If I was a country which *MIGHT* come in friction with the US, I should develop my own WMD ASAP. Here around we call that escalation, and as far as I can tell, with the current strong arming politic of the US, there is no way to avoid it.

      --
      C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
      visit randi.org
    6. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And did Iraq have any WMD when it was invaded in 2003? No.

      Looks like the diplomacy worked (at least, when coupled with sanctions).

    7. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon. And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB. If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks. You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

      Really, Did you ever watch the Andy Griffith Show? Barney never fired his gun, in fact he kept his only bullet in his pocket. More diplomacy is the same policy the UN has been using... 'We have a big gun, but keep all the ammo locked up somewhere where no one will get hurt, so lets talk about it...' I think this is a perfect weapon, obliterate the very real threat and eliminate the chance of response, and they will have nothing to threaten with...

    8. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs, the only argument was whether it was worth invading to get rid of them. Also remember that before 9/11, there was major world pressure to remove the sanctions from Iraq.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    9. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by amoeba1911 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but no oil in North Korea... and their midget leader is a joke more than anything else. The Japs could just send military equivalent of hello kitty armed with a sly swatter and invade the whole country overnight. But nobody wants to do that, nobody wants to open that can of worms because destabilizing a dictatorship creates a nightmare as the citizens are too brainwashed for any other system and putting your own dictator causes them to rebel against you even more. Only stoopid Americans blinded by smell of oil would wreak havoc by removing a well established and respected dictator and try to replace him with democracy, like in Iraq.
      So, as long as north korea doesn't have oil, we're safe.

    10. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by fractalus · · Score: 0, Troll

      And other than Hussein being a jerk, it was working--there's no evidence Iraq actually HAD any WMDs. The US just fabricated that story so they could go to war and depose Hussein. All while claiming to be "the good guys".

      --
      People are never as simple as their stereotypes. This applies equally to Christians, Muslims, and Emacs-lovers.
    11. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by digitalunity · · Score: 0

      According to UN reports post-'91, there were significant quantities of VX and mustard gas gone unaccounted for. No one doubts that the WMD's existed-only that Iraq actually had them in 2003.

      They're either buried in the desert or were sold off(Iran I'm looking at you). If Iraq legitimately destroyed them, they would have freely showed UN inspectors evidence of this.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    12. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you seriously think Diplomacy was not tried with NK, Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan, then you are not qualified to comment on the subject. It's really that plain and simple because you would be completely wrong on all accounts.

      This ordinance is not a shoot first ask questions later deployment. If it were, it would be a secret development. the reason you are reading about it is specifically because the government wants these countries like NK and Iran to realize it will get extremely expensive to hide or futile at best so they need to be serious at the table and with their commitments.

    13. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it. That is a wholly different proposition. Displacement of the North Korean government would probably cause less civilian violence than Iraq because their population is largely of the same ethnic origins. Violence in Iraq is largely sectarian, not just "terrorists" as the US government would have you believe.

      However, that doesn't mean the actual act of displacing DPRK's governemnt wouldn't require violence. They are one of the most heavily armed countries in the region. Although an exact figure is not known for military spending, it's believed to be a large percentage of their GDP even in comparison to countries like Iraq and Israel.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    14. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by ArcherB · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with most of your comment. However, I take issue with this statement:

      Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq)...

      I seem to remember something about ten years and 17 UN Resolutions

      . I also remember GWB giving Saddam the option of leaving Iraq peacefully before moving in.

      The difference between N. Korea and Iraq is that nearly every country in the area wanted Saddam taken out. No one in the area of N. Korea wants the area to be glowing in the dark.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're either buried in the desert or were sold off(Iran I'm looking at you).

      Yeah, right. It's a really brilliant idea to sell chemical weapons to the very country you've been using them on just a decade earlier, and which _still_ hates your guts.

    16. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This *is* American diplomacy.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology

    17. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And faked results. I don't know if 'faked' is the right word, but certainly the intelligence was wrong but they used it anyway to justify the war.

    18. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Informative

      After all these years, you still live by that fallacy. Try reading the USMOVIC and UNSCUM quarterly report, try paying attention to foreign news media pree 2000 and try paying attention to the leaders in the US.

      The entire world thought Iraq maintained its WMD programs and he left the appearance of doing so on purpose. He has said during interviews that he feared attacks from neighboring countries was his reasoning behind it. Not what makes the rest of the world different from the US is that they tackled the problem differently, France used the UN sanctions to scam secret and lucrative oil deals hidden within the UN oil for food program which is one reason why they were objectionable to an invasion (they would lose billions). Russia claimed they were contained and not a problem, Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.

      It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.

    19. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N. Korea never was the threat. China was and remains the threat. I seriously doubt that they'd let a Communist brethren nation fall and they probably still think of S. Korea and Japan as American staging areas. Then there's Taiwan!

      America's strategy is probably about India and Japan because there's no way that we can even come close to matching the manpower and less chance every day of matching local manufacturing capacity. China can't move their troops off of the mainland. (For now!)

      We can't afford another war, so unless someone else starts one, we won't be dropping diddly on China. For now, I guess hacker games are the battleground for the big game hunters! ;)

    20. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by dvoecks · · Score: 1

      While I don't disagree that all diplomatic avenues need to be exhausted prior to military action, developing weapons is hardly contradictory to that. The lead time on weapons development is long, and you need to be able to field a first rate army, if it does come to that. You can pursue diplomacy as the first, and virtually only option, while simultaneously preparing for the worst. I like the US carrying the big stick. It's the not walking softly I'm not too keen on.

    21. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.

      This claim was made in a book as well as taped interviews with a couple different people. I'm not sure that it's possible to verify the claims, at the time frame it supposedly happened Iraq was supposedly sending aid to Syria due to a damn breaking and a massive flood whcih was an increase in both air and land traffic from Iraq.

      Here is another link with a little more detail about the claims but it seems to be just as biased. It has a few more references though.

    22. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Rennt · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.

      The fact is that the UN believed that there was not enough evidence to support an invasion. When the US invaded (unilaterally), surprise, surprise, there was no evidence that the invasion was warranted either. Nobody is trying to rewrite history here, you are ignoring it

    23. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still waiting for that return...

    24. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe you don't seem to remember that in this country there are more then 22000000 people living! And i can assure you, that most of them are innocent. You cannot bomb it just like that!

      Remember how many innocent lives were taken when US attacked Iraq?

    25. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by artemis67 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That wasn't diplomacy, that was browbeating. Slight difference.

      What does the phrase "Unconditional Surrender" mean to you?

    26. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Germany was the same with the exception of the UN inspector Hans Blix who contrary to reports submitted to the UN security council under his department, claimed that Iraq had no WMDs but then again, who do you believe, the guy who is anti war and stated something different when war seemed eminent or the guy who spent the better part of ten years claiming Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction.

      Hans Blix was Swedish but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.

    27. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --something that Barney Fife would do--

      Barney:

      "nip it"
      "nip it Andy"
      "nip it in the bud"

      Andy:

      "now just wait a minute Barney"

    28. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      There was considerable argument about the validity of the WMD claim, even within the intelligence communities, but that was hardly covered by the media. That most of congress did not even read the summaries of the reports (hey, they must all be slashdotters) but instead abdicated their duty and signed over the right to declare war to the executive is . . . well I have trouble finding the words for it. Treasonous is what I want to say. Lazy at best, but why should one branch assist another in its consolidation of powers?

    29. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs. You can't rewrite history.

      Particularly before the war, popular opinion wasn't entirely uniform.

      For example, in my case, I thought it was very unlikely that Iraq had nuclear weapons or significant chemical/biological capabilities. For one thing, the UN inspectors weren't finding anything but, more fundamentally, it seemed unlikely that the Bush administration would invade start a war with Iraq if they honestly believed that Iraq had the capability to destroy major US cities.

      My analysis of the situation was that the pro-war crowd (including people like Hillary Clinton) needed a legal technicality so that the invasion wasn't a violation of international law (a "class A" war crime) - and the WMD claims provided this legal technicality.

      Fundamentally, the invasion of Iraq was about three things: getting access to Iraq's oil for Bush's Texas oil buddies (given that the oil in Texas was already claimed) and doing a favor for the country responsible for 9/11 (Saudi Arabia - because the brutal government of Saudia Arabia was friends with the Bushes) and, finally, throwing a bone to the Christian fundamentalists who want to shape the Middle East to fit their rather bizarre religious narratives.

    30. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by AshtangiMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      We seem to butt heads a lot, so understand that I am not trying to flame you. You make the case for WMD sound like it was a slam dunk. I have read the intelligence reports, and worked in related fields through the 90s and into 2002-3. There was considerable debate as to the WMD validity, even in our own intelligence communities prior to the war and from the late 90s. The intelligence report to congress included this debate, but the administration played down the debate and spun it to look like the WMD was a much more likely case than it really was. Unfortunately for all of us congress for the most part simply accepted the Cheney/ Rumsfeld spin. You are correct in asserting that it wasn't until later (there still is no after for this war) that public opinion became that there were no WMDs.

    31. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Um, no. The UN didn't believe there was enough threat posed by Iraq to warrant an invasion. That's not the same thing as evidence.

      As I said before, if you bothered reading the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM Inspection reports- all of which is availible online if you care to indulge in some intellectual honesty, you would clearly see where the UN believed Saddam had illegally operating weapons programs and banned weapons capabilities. Most of these reports were filed under Hans Blix's supervision only to have him do a 180 when he saw war approaching. They just believed Iraq was contained and could be controlled so the threat didn't warrant a war.

      You are totally misrepresenting the situation without regard to the facts. Read the reports and you will see the facts.

    32. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      Hans Blix was Swedish but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.

      Actually, the first 3 anti war and Iraq has no WMDs claims made by Blix came from Stockholm Germany. He was Associate Professor in International Law at Stockholm University, and formed an independent international That he chairs called the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC) which again is based in Stockholm Germany.

      He may be Swedish but you cannot deny a connection to Germany. but I suppose it's unreasonable to expect someone like you to know that when you're so busy making accusations.

    33. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Actually, a number of ex-Iraqi military officials [freerepublic.com] claimed that Russia flew them out of Iraq and some were moved to Syria.--

      A lot of them claimed Scott Speicher was being held captive too. Some of those Arabs are such bull shitters too. Why should we worry about chemical weapons? Iraq would have to have the ability to deploy them. I thought nukes were mentioned specifically.

    34. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Maybe all this stuff is true, but all we are talking about is chemical weapons. Anyone that can mix bleach and ammonia can get those. If you can make pesticide, you can make nerve gas. So, maybe he was breaking the rules, but was there another way besides total war. Sorry, but I have to agree with the Russians, and Germans. If they agree on it, then it must be so, because those two countries have a history of not agreeing on anything. Why didn't we just send an air strike or two instead of a whole army? Either there was another reason that is still secret or Bush just cowboy-ed the situation without thinking it through. As far as it costing the French money, we are the ones paying for not listening.

    35. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, MANY voiced strong and sincere doubt that there were any functional WMD in Iraq at all before the 2003 invasion. They were ignored and/or shouted down vigorously.

      Given that there WERE NO WMDs in Iraq, perhaps the world pressure to lighten the sanctions was right. As for 9/11, wasn't that Osama operating out of Afghanistan? (So naturally, we invaded Iraq, just like Bush wanted to do before 9/11 ever happened).

    36. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Really? Who?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      And he did a terrible job of convincing. It was the Bush administration that did the real convincing with cooked up data. The pressure on Iraq was for him to open up to inspections and make him prove where his WMD stores were. On top of that, the shelf life of what he did have had expired long before the invasion. We had plenty of evidence to know he was full of it. The tip-off to me was when the inspectors found of crate of nerve gas artillery shells (empty) still sitting in their crate in a hangar that had been bombed back in '91. Now, I'm sure that crate was on the list of "stuff we know you have, Saddam."

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    38. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Debate towards the validity of the WMDs isn't really the issue here. It's the concept that is incorrectly repeated that only the US thought they were there or that it was real that I am concerned with.

      I'm not saying that there wasn't skeptics, I'm saying that every major government in the world had intelligence stating that Iraq most likely did have WMDs or has failed in their disarming obligations pressed from the previous war. About the closest to denial at the time before war was eminent would be Russia who said they have seen no creditable evidence one way or the other but then in turn signed onto the UN resolution 1441 stating that Iraq had not complied with thier obligations under the armistice agreements ending the 1990 war. Russia was pushing for increased intense inspections citing that Iraq was contained and not a threat.

      The problem was that no government would claim that Iraq had no WMDs nor did they attempt to until after war was eminent or already started. The governments that did were knee deep in scams surrounding the sanctions implemented by the UN in an attempt to force compliance. Stating something contrary 6 months later does not mean you were against it 6 or 8 months before yet people want to pretend that earlier positions were never present. Now, I admit that this doesn't make it a slam dunk for the case of WMDs but it wasn't blindingly obvious that they weren't there at the time the war was being pushed. Had those claims been made 6 months earlier or a year earlier, war would have not been an option.

      In fact, I believe that if the oil for food scams wouldn't have been perpetrated by France and the corruption in the UN wasn't prevalent, that Iraq would have satisfied his obligations long before war was an issue too.

    39. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You're citing some of the bogus intel that Bush used. The "dual use" materials included the infamous "aluminum tubes" that they KNEW couldn't be used in centrifuges, yet they continued to pimp that argument because it benefited their story. Saddam had no WMD (that stuff has a shelf life) and had no weapons program. Same thing with the yellow cake claims from Nigeria. Just a bunch of poorly forged documents that even the Italians rejected. And, what "munitions" were being found? Are you talking about crap lying around in bombed out hangars that hadn't been touched in years? I actually watched the footage of the inspectors walking through bombed out facilities and finding unreported "materials" among the wreckage.

      I don't get your "guy who is anti war" comment. Are you saying Hans Blix fabricated evidence because he's a pacifist?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    40. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      That bogus intel like Iraq wasn't cooperating, munitions declared destroy were being found, dual use materials were being discovered which weren't reported as per the agreement, chemical processing components actually used in WMD manufacturing were being used in "other chemical processes" at other plants despite a declaration of destruction came directly from UNMOVIC reports. That bogus intel was delivered to the United Nations Security Council by the very organization that Hans Blix was head of.

      Like I said, read the UNMOVIC and UNSCUM reports. All your answers are in those official reports with details of everything. Until you do so, you will still be confused and trotting crap out that you have no fucking clue about but are willing to repeat because you think it supports your view.

    41. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Oh yea, and the anti war thing. I'm saying that reports submitted by the agency Hans Blix was head of contradicted his unofficial assessments when talk of war became prevalent. This could be for a number of reasons, most likely a self indulgence in feeling needed and a will for job security that cam back to bite him when other people acted on the information he was responsible for. It could of course have been a total reversal because he was a pacifist but it's likely he lied before he knew his actions could lead to war.

    42. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Maybe all this stuff is true, but all we are talking about is chemical weapons. Anyone that can mix bleach and ammonia can get those. If you can make pesticide, you can make nerve gas. So, maybe he was breaking the rules, but was there another way besides total war.

      I can't believe that I have to explain this but I guess I will. There could have been other ways besides war but that is totally irrelevent. The question wasn't about alternatives to war, it was about the misconception that only the US believed WMDs existed. The entire world believed they did with Russia claiming the evidence wasn't creditable either way and Germany claiming Iraq was contained. None of them said the WMDs were not present until after the war started.

      Anyways, Iraq had strict obligations they were to observe that ended the previous war. Being able to make rudimentary chemical weapons is not the problem, it's meeting those obligations in open and honest ways to so an indication that the WMDs wouldn't be used again and that the armistice agreements ending the first gulf war was being honored. IT was about compliance, not mixing two chemicals together.

      Sorry, but I have to agree with the Russians, and Germans. If they agree on it, then it must be so, because those two countries have a history of not agreeing on anything. Why didn't we just send an air strike or two instead of a whole army?

      That's totally irrelevant to the point I made. I'm not arguing for the war, I'm setting the record straight that more then the US believed that Iraq had WMDs and was some sort of threat. And the only thing the two countries agreed on was over the necessity of war or not. Germany didn't originally dispute claims of WMDs and Russia didn't think any of the evidence was creditable.

      Either there was another reason that is still secret or Bush just cowboy-ed the situation without thinking it through. As far as it costing the French money, we are the ones paying for not listening.

      Why can't you stick to the tired old montra the he was stupid and saw more in the evidence then others did. I mean you Bush bashers seem to jump from one thing to another depending on how well you think it supports your opinions.

      As for the french and money, you are so absorbed in yourself and the fallacies you have convinced yourself to believe in that you didn't even see the point of the comment. That or you seriously have a comprehension problem and don't see the connections. The French losing money is a motivation for objection to actions. The US spending more in the end is irrelevant to that point.

    43. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you were paying attention, the Nukes were mentioned in the capacity of having a banned nuclear weapons program. The fact was that we didn't know how far along or if they were along or even still active. This is because of a falsified document floating around and connections to Niger.

      As for the chemical weapons, they had a means to deploy them but worse yet, there were connections to terrorists who would deploy them at their own peril. Take the Tokyo subway gas attack, nothing specifically sophisticated there but because it was in a subway, lots of people were affected. And Given Iraq's stance towards the west, it was something that couldn't be ruled out. This is especially true when Iraq was giving safe harbor to known terrorist, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in northern Iraq, was giving sanction and medical treatment to Foreign nationals injured in battle against the US in Afghanistan, and was paying a pension to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.

      The presents a little different situation then you described.

    44. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sjames · · Score: 1

      Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group. That is, the weapons inspectors who were actually in Iraq and looking for WMD. Pretty much any nation not a member of the "Coalition of the willing". Scott Ritter, a U.N. Weapons inspector.

      Beyond that, others indicated that invading Iraq was not necessary to contain any threat that might exist. Those include such nobodies as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, George H.W. Bush's security adviser, Brent Scowcroft. The former head of Central command, Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni and others in a truly impressive list of Who's Who in the American military. Presumably, none of them believed that purported Iraqi WMDs posed a credible threat to the United States that wasn't already under control.

      Many years ago when I first read 1984, I doubted that Big Brother's program of revising history would work in the real world. Now I'm convinced that it would and that it wouldn't be/isn't nearly as difficult as Orwell imagined.

    45. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Syria, not Iran, is the likely destination.

    46. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      France and Russia were not part of the coalition of the willing and yet both countries believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.
      Charles Duelfer joined the UN weapons inspection team in 2003. I can't find any reference to him saying BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs. So, once again, please list who expressed the opinion that Sadamm Hussein's Iraq had no WMDs BEFORE the invasion?

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    47. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --This is especially true when Iraq was giving safe harbor to known terrorist, allowed terrorist training camps to operate in northern Iraq, was giving sanction and medical treatment to Foreign nationals injured in battle against the US in Afghanistan, and was paying a pension to the families of suicide bombers who attacked Israel.--

      Citations please, no conservative think tank. Real ones. They didn't fund Al-Qaeda. Where is the proof for that? Iran sure as hell are funding new ones. They just make plastic explosive and send it across there borders to where we are located now. That is where the real threat is right now.

      Like someone else said Bush overreacted. He should have used other means for the problem there.

    48. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sjames · · Score: 1

      Before that, he served as the executive chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq. Further, his report was based on years of work by the Iraq Survey Group. Consider his name as a placeholder for many more people and years of work. France and Germany wanted to wait for exactly that report before taking action. That was on the basis of preliminary analysis. They did NOT believe there were WMD, they reserved judgment.

      In other words, the final report came after, but the content of that report was no surprise at all to anyone who was paying attention.

      Most likely, Bush pushed forward to make sure the invasion would be in progress by the time the results of the inspections were officially announced.

      You ignored the Joint Chiefs and other military analysts. As I said, they all opposed the invasion. It stands to reason that they had their doubts about the credibility of a WMD threat. Certainly there were plenty of questions about the reliability of the reports claiming there WERE WMDs in Iraq.

      Given the efforts to fabricate intelligence supporting WMDs in Iraq, it seems likely that even supporters of the invasion had doubts.

    49. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Please give me a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.
      You mention France, Jacques Chirac was implicated in receiving bribes from Saddam through the oil-for food program. France and Germany wanted to delay because the invasion would disrupt the lucrative business deals they had with Iraq, not because they believed Iraq had no WMDs.
      Once more, please provide me with a reference to someone who said BEFORE the invasion that Iraq had no WMDs.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    50. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sjames · · Score: 1

      "There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003

      Let me guess, you want me to prove he didn't keep the results of each and every one of those reports a secret in his closet until after the invasion?

      All of the people I have mentioned would have seen the individual inspection reports as they happened over a decade's time and seen that there were no credible reports of WMD. That's why they told Bush we shouldn't invade. If Bush didn't see those reports it's because he didn't WANT to. If he didn't hear the Joint Chiefs saying it was a mistake to invade Iraq, it's because he didn't want to.

      Note that the Duelfer report wasn't whipped up in a couple months based on his personal wandering in Iraq. It was based on all of the inspection team reports. I don't know the names of those team leaders, but their reports are what said there were no WMD to be found.

      Surely you don't actually believe that the invasion of Iraq was uncontroversial?!? Or that not one single inspection report was ever available to the U.S. President?

      Personally, I was surprised it took until 2003 for the war to start. I was fairly sure Bush intended to invade Iraq one way or another before he was even elected.

    51. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      The Duelfer report was based on inspections that occurred after the invasion. It doesn't tell us anything about what people knew BEFORE the invasion. You keep referring to "people" who said there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion, but you don't give me any references.
      I happen to know of exactly one person who said that there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion. The problem with him is that he had published a book saying there were WMDs in Iraq in 2000, then in 2002, with no source for new information, he said that there were no WMDs in Iraq. That person was Scott Ritter. Can you name one other person who said, BEFORE the invasion, that there were no WMDs in Iraq.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    52. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sc0p3 · · Score: 1

      But the lack of oil make them much less interesting ;)

    53. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Even north koreans don't respect their government, they fear it

      No doubt, many are brainwashed with a daily onslaught of propaganda, but just how many more fear their government. It's the population ratio of fear/respect that I'm interested in.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    54. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by jonadab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In retrospect, I'm pretty sure Saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction. He wanted people to *think* he had them, for the same reason Nasser wanted to people to think Egypt had the military capability to kick Israel into the sea in 1967. It was bluster. He was conceited enough to think he could get the whole world to back down if he looked sufficiently big and scary. Fundamentally, he made the same basic mistake Japan made at Pearl Harbor: he didn't understand how Americans think. When we see a threat, we don't run away from it. We'd rather send in the troops and neutralize the threat.

      The take-home point is this: even strategies that you think are really clever can backfire if you don't know your enemy. Japan's preemptive "bomb them so they won't enter the war" strategy might have worked against Koreans, but against Americans it was counterproductive. Nasser's bluster (or Hussein's) might have worked against another Arab nation, but it didn't work so well against Israel (or the USA). You've got to know your enemy, or all your cleverness is for naught.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    55. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Nationwide poverty and food rationing dampens even propaganda-driven nationalism.

      I'd bet respect for the government is very low, even among government employees.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    56. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      Bullshit!

      The European governments, particularly France and Germany thought Saddam didn't have WMDs. Or did you forget all that rhetoric about "Old Europe" and "Freedom Fries" spewed out by Bush and co when they didn't co-operate?

      In the UK there was a huge scandal after it was revealed that their intelligence reports that were used as the justification for their involvement in Iraq were "Sexed up". There was no evidence of WMDs and any mention of WMDs in the reports were our of date or doubtful intelligence that had been passed off as fact.

    57. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 1

      Why do you think he only had one and had to carry it in his shirt pocket?

      Oh, and I stand corrected in that this time Diplomacy did not fail. It was great seeing the Big Dog greeting those two freed political prisoners. Perhaps even N Korea can be reasoned with.

       

      --
      One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    58. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      This is not insightful. It's truthiness.

      "I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon."

      We do tons of diplomacy. No one remembers it, but we did it. In the case of Iraq, there was twelve YEARS of it. Was twelve not enough? Or was it not enough because you were bitter about the 2000 election? i was pissed too, but that didn't mean i had to abandon reason and what i know of the history around Saddam.

      "And after he likely completely fails, THEN we can blow the shit out of them righteously, if need be, since we at least tried to talk with the crazy SOB."

      See above. There was plenty of talking. Plenty of non-military efforts to bring Saddam in line. Evil people don't care who they hurt or exploit. Thus the food for oil program paid for his new palaces instead of much needed food and medicine for his people. People blamed the US for the lack of meds, ignoring that Saddam was dragging out the inspections, playing shell games, trying to move against the Kurds, running rape rooms and many other terrible things. But no, they blamed the US. Not Saddam.

      "If the Big Dog can't get N Korea to the table, then no one can. Shoot first and ask questions later (like we (America and it's allies) did in Iraq) is something that Barney Fife would do, and only works in mass market action flicks."

      *yawn* Let me guess, freshman? Sophomore in college? You just read Zinn or that other prick.

      "You see unlike Iraq, N Korea really DOES have WMD (including chemical and biological weapons), and truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies."

      Iraq HAD WMD. The threat was NOT the WMD Saddam had on hand in 02, but that the SANCTIONS WERE ABOUT TO END. Think for moment. Use your brains and not your heart for just a moment to project what would have happened in Iraq when the sanctions, inspections and no-fly zones ended. Russia, China and France had billions in arms deals waiting for the sanctions to end. With no inspections the WMD programs would have resumed. No NFZ means mass graves full of Kurds (or whoever else he didn't like that day). It would mean Saddam's darling sons taking over, for another 30 years of rape rooms, mass graves, invading neighbors, funding suicide bombers in Israel (but you prolly think that's OK) and so on. Now Iraq has a chance to be something much better. Now it's up to them... not the caprice of a dictator. That is, if we don't leave them to the wolves.

      Hit the reply button to change the subject to oil and Dubya.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    59. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The links do not matter whether they are conservative or not. And you are an idiot if you think Al Qeada is the only terrorist group out there. I didn't say Al Qeada and Al Qeada not being included is not a disqualifies. Support for terrorist or terrorism is just that regardless of what name the terrorist take. If you are willing to ignore information because it didn't come from your favorite source, then will will always remain ignorant. If you are willing to supplant what was said with your own ideology leaning, you will remain stupid.

      http://web.archive.org/web/20070605111535/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec12.pdf Read the next two pages.

      You can also find information at wikipedia which is cited by looking for Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and was also offered and received safe haven while recuperating from injuries received in Afghanistan.

      Hamas pays its bombers' survivors a permanent pension of $300 to $600 a month in addition to bankrolling the family's health care and the education of the bomber's children. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein also funds a one-time $20,000 payment for the families--increased from $10,000 about six months ago in a show of solidarity.

    60. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Bullshit!

      That's right, you are repeating bullshit.

      The European governments, particularly France and Germany thought Saddam didn't have WMDs. Or did you forget all that rhetoric about "Old Europe" and "Freedom Fries" spewed out by Bush and co when they didn't co-operate?

      Way to ignore reality just to supplement your own. France and Germany's non-cooperation says nothing to their reasoning idiot. As I already stated before, France was protecting it's secret and illegal oil deals and Germany thought Iraq was contained and didn't pose a threat large enough warranting war. France ended up echoing that sentiment claiming that inspectors could achieve the same goals as war. They both thought it was likely he had WMDs still and was not in compliance with Iraq's obligations under UN resolutions pertaining to the 1990 armistice. Quite rewriting history to suit your own world view.

      In the UK there was a huge scandal after it was revealed that their intelligence reports that were used as the justification for their involvement in Iraq were "Sexed up". There was no evidence of WMDs and any mention of WMDs in the reports were our of date or doubtful intelligence that had been passed off as fact.

      And when was that realized? Oh yea, after the fucking invasion which means that before the invasion, the UK thought Iraq had WMDs and wasn't in compliance with their obligations. And yes, the scandal resulted in support for the war by an overstatement of the intelligence, not a change in the information presented.

      The entire fucking UN thought Iraq had WMDs and weren't in compliance with their disarmament obligations. Hell, Hans Blix who claimed later the Iraq had nothing as his anti war statements became more prevalent said in January of 2003 (2 months before the invasion) that Iraq couldn't explain where 6,500 chemical weapon bombs got off to or some 1000 tonnes of chemical agents, Claimed that they found new documents relating to laser enrichment of Uranium and a nuclear weapons program in a scientists home and adding "we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes.". Blix also stated "Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.

      There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991."

      And yes, France's then president Jacques Chirac said in an interview for Time Magazine that ran in the Feb. 24, 2003 issue (interview taking place feb 16 before) (again, 1 month before the invasion) "Are there nuclear arms in Iraq? I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq-controlled and inspected as it is-pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see." How in the world can you remotely claim that France didn't think Iraq had WMDs when their fucking president said they did.

      Russia also claimed Iraq had links to terrorism as reported in the Washington post Saturday, June 19, 2004; Page A11
      Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Sad

    61. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      What I meant was reliable sources.

      --Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003--\

      I did and it says 2004, after we went to war.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

      I looked at your other links and they are not newer than 2002.

      As far as Al-Qaeda goes, what it is or was is still a matter of debate. Some evidence suggest that it was a US invention to convict Osama Bin Laden under the RICO act in a absentia.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

      Maybe an air strike or two and some special forces would have been enough to take care of the other problems you mentioned with fewer deaths and money spent that an all out war would cost us. Trying to turn Iraq into a democracy is beyond naive. As far as my political leanings go, they tend to be based on facts rather than opinions. I don't an agenda one way or another. I'm like everyone else in the fact I don't like to be lied too. Of course since all war is based on deception, there could have been another reason to be in Iraq that would justify killing so many people even ours, and ruining the economy to pay for it. My guess is that the other countries that didn't go along with us had the same information we did and didn't just disagree because the were "against us".

      I do remember Bush saying that if you were not for us, you were against us. That is a silly and dangerous idea.

      I think you sir are have a neo conservative agenda, and besides what does any of this have to do with bunker busting bombs?

    62. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What I meant was reliable sources.

      Those were reliable sources. Or are you going to put your head in the sand and ignore them because it doesn't fit your world view? Here is a hint, not considering all the facts generally means your assumptions are wrong or have a high potential of being so. Especially when the facts contradict them.

      --Abu Musab al Zarqawi who did have links to Al Qeada before the 2003--\

      I did and it says 2004, after we went to war.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

      I looked at your other links and they are not newer than 2002.

      I suggest you go back and read all of the wikipedia page as well as the link I presented. You should also put your reading compregension hat on and pay fucking attention this time. The Wikki page clearly says "After the 2001 war in Afghanistan, Zarqawi appeared on a U.S. list of most-wanted al-Qaeda terrorists still at large in early 2002" I goes on to say "Zarqawi's group continued to received funding from Osama bin Laden and pursued "a largely distinct, if occasionally overlapping agenda," according to The Washington Post.[57] Counterterrorism experts told the Washington Post that while Zarqawi accepted al-Qaeda's financial help to set up a training camp in Afghanistan he ran it independently and while bin Laden was planning September 11, Zarqawi was busy developing a plot to topple the Jordanian monarchy and attack Israel.[58]"

      But the link to Al Qeada is completely irrelevent as I mentioned previously. Zarqawi was a terrorist who set up a terrorist training camp in both Afghanistan and Iraq and Iraq gave him safe haven despite being told his location by Jordan officials. Even your inept ability to comprehend the wiki article doesn't refute that.

      Maybe an air strike or two and some special forces would have been enough to take care of the other problems you mentioned with fewer deaths and money spent that an all out war would cost us.

      It doesn't really matter. Again, I have not argued for any specific action just that the facts were there. I'm not sure why you want to turn this into a we should have done this or that debate while ignoring the plain and simple truth of the circumstances. About the best I can guess is that you are attempting to deflect from it in order to hide the truth and somehow think you can win the your argument in that way. well, it isn't working.

      Trying to turn Iraq into a democracy is beyond naive. As far as my political leanings go, they tend to be based on facts rather than opinions. I don't an agenda one way or another.

      So far, you have demonstrated your inability to see facts. But here is the problem that was/is a very real fact. We removed a government and no government instituted to replace it would be legitimate if it wasn't put in place by the people. That is why they went with a democracy- so the people would have put their own government in place and not the US. Iraq can go back to a dictatorship at any time as long as the people agree with it. Bush even said as much back in 2005 or 2006. Although he did add that he didn't want to see it go that way.

      I don't an agenda one way or another. I'm like everyone else in the fact I don't like to be lied too.

      Actually, you do have an agenda whether you want to admit it or not. You are ignoring facts as they were understood at the time in order to impress some other anthem which supports your idea of being lied to. The only way you were lied to is if you completely ignore the situation before Iraq and only consider what was known after the fact. People can say something that is wrong and it doesn't mean they lied. In fact, I believe you to be brainwashed and actually think you are telling the truth w

    63. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      The facts are this, I liked Bush at first. When he decided to go to war with Iraq, I thought we all were going to be in big trouble if he doesn't find WMD's that are a threat, specifically nuclear material. We'll none have been found period. The "sent it all somewhere else" like Syria answer is a lame answer, because that is just a wild guess. Where is the smoking gun? Bush didn't even have the sense to fake some evidence. Who cares about chemical weapons? Like I said before, they are simple for 2 guys to make. As far as me citing the page, I didn't but you did, I just provided a link that you didn't. At the top of the page it does say 2004. I'll quote it for you "In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden." Before that it is mention as alleged. You are right about him being a terrorist though.

      The only reason I'm answering at all is your statement:

      ME**I do remember Bush saying that if you were not for us, you were against us. That is a silly and dangerous idea.**

      YOU--Actually, no it isn't silly. Or would you find it fitting that your friends hang around and support someone wanting to kill you?--

      We'll you are obviously not with me. Do I consider you a threat merely because we don't agree and your not "with me" on this particular issue. We'll not really because it's only a discussion. Bush may have not meant it to sound that way, but since I can't read minds, only he will know. It sure sounds like he only wanted "yes men" in his administration though.

      The list of complaints on Obama are increasing with me as well. Both political seem to say one thing to get elected and then do the exact opposite of that once they are there. The Libertarian's out there or the other parties seem to have even less answers for problems.

      If I have wish or agenda at all it would be to NOT let corporations donate to political campaigns. That way the leaders would have to please the people and not just the 1% of rich people that give them money.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

      --You claiming I have a conservative agenda is a bit moronic coming from someone who wants to ignore reality so bad that he can't even remember a line of conversation less then 5 days old.--

      Your new here ain't you?

    64. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The facts are this, I liked Bush at first. When he decided to go to war with Iraq, I thought we all were going to be in big trouble if he doesn't find WMD's that are a threat, specifically nuclear material. We'll none have been found period.

      First of all, you are completely our of line. Because none were found does not mean none were there nor does it mean that we didn't believe they were there. As it turned out, we were wrong but this entire idea that people were purposely lying is fallacious speculation based on what they want to believe rather then any fact. Second, there are reasons to why they havn't been found, some of those reasons include Saddam insisting on making people believe he maintained WMDs out of fear of attacks from neighboring countries.

      The "sent it all somewhere else" like Syria answer is a lame answer, because that is just a wild guess. Where is the smoking gun?

      Actually, it isn't a wild guess as I pointed out in the very first post in this thread that you thought it necessary to chime in about. Iraqi generals said they used civilian military aircraft and humanitarian missions to Syria to smuggle the WMDs out with the help of some Russian Special forces. This is not a wild guess, it is an actual claim made by a person (actually a couple people) who were in positions to know at the time. The validity of the claim may be in question but that says nothing to someone making the claim to have first hand knowledge of it. And yes, we do have radar reports and intelligence detailing increased traffic both in the air and on the ground during the time it took place but it was also during the time a damn broke in Syria and Iraq was supposedly sending aid to them. That part there is undeniable.

      Also, the only reason it was brought up by me is because the parent poster suggested Iran and I corrected him with Sada's recollection of the events.

      Bush didn't even have the sense to fake some evidence. Who cares about chemical weapons? Like I said before, they are simple for 2 guys to make.

      Which indicates that he actually did believe they were there and would be found despite claims that he lied. In fact, the entire world admitted to believing they were there but differed on what should have been done about them.

      As far as me citing the page, I didn't but you did, I just provided a link that you didn't. At the top of the page it does say 2004. I'll quote it for you "In late 2004 he joined al-Qaeda and pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden." Before that it is mention as alleged. You are right about him being a terrorist though.

      He had interactions and connections to Al Qeada before 2004 as the site mentions. It wasn't an alegience like what happened after 2004 but we cannot deny ties between the two as they have mutually aided each other well before the brokered support in 2004 became a reality.

      That is a problem with looking for the information you need to prove your point. It can often lead to valuable and contradictory information being overlooks because someone things their job was done.

      We'll you are obviously not with me. Do I consider you a threat merely because we don't agree and your not "with me" on this particular issue. We'll not really because it's only a discussion. Bush may have not meant it to sound that way, but since I can't read minds, only he will know. It sure sounds like he only wanted "yes men" in his administration though.

      As I previously explained, the with us or against us doctrine was to make it clear that situations like Afghanistan and the Taliban in which we gave them millions (or billions) in aid just before 9/11 would not happen again. If they were not aligned on our interest and actually harbored the people we consider enemies, we will no longer consider them with us but against us. We knew t

    65. Re:Not recon...Diplomacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It wasn't until after the war when popular opinion became that there was no WMDs."

      In fact, you're completely and utterly wrong.

      There was, prior to the "W"-ordered invasion of Iraq, a lengthy article in The Atlantic magazine which detailed the CIA's assessment of the threat posed by Iraq, and the assessment was that Iraq posed no
      threat to the national security of the US and did not possess WMDs. Since that article, various outfits
      in charge of doublespeak have injected propaganda into the national debate which has attempted to
      deflect the truth from being quit so apparent. I suspect you might work for one of those oufits, except that
      they usually hire smart people ...

      Bottom line : you don't know what you're talking about. And your screen name is 100% appropriate, because you are indeed a dumbass.

      In case you were wondering, I work for an agency which gives me access to a lot more info than you will ever get near, so I am aware of just how completely full of shit you are.

      Do the world a favor and go drink another Budweiser, idiot, and keep your mouth shut when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

  33. Latest version of the club!!?? by msimm · · Score: 1

    It's a club with wheels!!

    --
    Quack, quack.
  34. America's like a super-hybrid by msimm · · Score: 1

    America's what would happen if you put Australia into a blender and then mixed it with Canada.

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:America's like a super-hybrid by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's one amazing hybrid since the U.S. is older than both Australia and Canada.

    2. Re:America's like a super-hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Canadian, I'd hate to think that Australia is _that_ awful... I was hoping to visit som

    3. Re:America's like a super-hybrid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the U.S. is older than both Australia and Canada.

      The United States of America was a separate country before Canada was, but your history does not go back any further than Canada's. Not even if you restrict "history" to mean European colonization.

    4. Re:America's like a super-hybrid by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Not unless your blender has a "bend, fold, spindle and mutilate" setting.

  35. Smoke and mirrors.. by msimm · · Score: 0, Troll

    If Gore Vidal is even remotely right it appears we've selected a combination of terrorism and South Korea to distract the public from rational thought and local politics. I wonder what the fire-drill's like for bunker busting nuclear ordinance?

    --
    Quack, quack.
    1. Re:Smoke and mirrors.. by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. And 9/11 didn't happen, neither did NK's nuclear tests, nor their missile test. But Kimmie is a reasonable guy, he wouldn't do anything stupid. And those nice well adjusted al Qaeda guys, they just want to be loved.

    2. Re:Smoke and mirrors.. by msimm · · Score: 1

      How many terrorist attacks have there been on US soil? Statistically you're more likely to get hit by a fossilized Twinkie.

      --
      Quack, quack.
  36. Re:Does it strike anyone as hypocrit... by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are stories that are coming from Burma/Myanmar in which North Korea is helping them to create their own production line. This same country that has done all that it can to hold its citizen back in terms of education, had Russia bring in a 10MW reactor.Burma's explanation for it: Nuclear Medicine. That country is nearly 50 years behind in primary medicine and they are claiming that they want a monster reactor for Nuclear Medicine. Well, nice. Of course, the reactor is being buried in the hillside with Russia and North Korea's help. And apparently, North Korea has been busy helping these ppl. That is why NK absolutely did not want us to board that ship. Apparently W's admin KNEW that Burma was doing this and did nothing about it.

    Now, we may be forced down the road to either blow nukes or blow a conventional bomb to destroy these bunkers. Which would you prefer that we do?

    What does bother me, is why are we talking disarmament? China is actively building new launch vehicles and there is overwhelming evidence that they have started up new production lines of nuke warhead. They are KNOWN to have at least 600 warheads, but there are some indications that they have over 1000.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  37. Previous British Attempts by Sylvanus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Evelyn Waugh - Letter to His Wife - 31st May 1942

    No.3 Commando was very anxious to be chums with Lord Glasgow, so they offered to blow up an old tree stump for him and he was very grateful and said don't spoil the plantation of young trees near it because that is the apple of my eye and they said no of course not we can blow a tree down so it falls on a sixpence and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever and he asked them all to luncheon for the great explosion.

    So Col. Durnford-Slater DSO said to his subaltern, have you put enough explosive in the tree?. Yes, sir, 75lbs. Is that enough? Yes sir I worked it out by mathematics it is exactly right. Well better put a bit more. Very good sir.

    And when Col. D Slater DSO had had his port he sent for the subaltern and said subaltern better put a bit more explosive in that tree. I don't want to disappoint Lord Glasgow. Very good sir.

    Then they all went out to see the explosion and Col. DS DSO said you will see that tree fall flat at just the angle where it will hurt no young trees and Lord Glasgow said goodness you are clever.

    So soon they lit the fuse and waited for the explosion and presently the tree, instead of falling quietly sideways, rose 50 feet into the air taking with it 1/2 acre of soil and the whole young plantation.

    And the subaltern said Sir, I made a mistake, it should have been 7 1/2 not 75. Lord Glasgow was so upset he walked in dead silence back to his castle and when they came to the turn of the drive in sight of his castle what should they find but that every pane of glass in the building was broken.

    So Lord Glasgow gave a little cry and ran to hide his emotions in the lavatory and there when he pulled the plug the entire ceiling, loosened by the explosion, fell on his head.
    This is quite true.

    1. Re:Previous British Attempts by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Okay, so some high-ranking people were dumb. There's a couple of questions the Colonel and his staff could have asked:

      What would I expect to see if a 150-pound HE bomb landed on that tree?

      What would I expect to see if a 12" HE shell landed on that tree?

      Either of those would have very roughly the same amount of HE. Any halfway decent judgment with any amount of military experience or training commensurate with either an officer or anybody trusted with explosives would have suggested that 75 pounds was way too much. Nobody involved used either judgment or common sense.

      That's the way to legitimately convince Lord Glasgow that No. 3 Commando is more dangerous to the Allies than the Axis.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  38. Those are being saved by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    At some future time, we may need those. Obviously once used, they will be worthless. The reason is that all other countries will change their tactics. At this point, it allows us to hit bunkers hard that are holding ICBM/Nuke Tipped. That is needed for countries that have 500+ bunkers, rather than 10.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Those are being saved by Znork · · Score: 1

      Of course, bombers heading for ICBM bunkers would be a strong incentive for emptying those ICBM bunkers, so that use case may be a bit counter productive.

    2. Re:Those are being saved by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Only if you know they are coming. OTH, if they are invisible to your radar and are quiet, then not a problem.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Those are being saved by Znork · · Score: 1

      True, but while the actual bombers may be silent and invisible to radar, the preceding media build up is unlikely to be, so you'll get that as a trigger instead. Seems like we're entering the age of pre-emptive nuclear strikes used as 'self-defence'.

    4. Re:Those are being saved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I think that before we use a nuclear bomb, we will use something like kinetic weapons from space. There is a real reason why USA has large DOD sats and why China is now putting up multiple manned space stations JUST for the their military. It should be obvious to all that while the west does not have WMD in space, they obviously do have weapons up there. The difference being that China will likely put nukes on some of their space stations along with lasers, etc.

    5. Re:Those are being saved by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Or they might dig a hole deeper than 200ft, putting them out of the range of this device!

  39. More examples by Inconexo · · Score: 0, Troll

    This weapon is intended to annihilate underground bunkers and other hardened sites (read: long-range missile or underground nuke development)

    Or civilian refuges, given the case.

  40. 2012 by Danzigism · · Score: 1

    I always thought the 2012 thing was a hoax. but not anymore.

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  41. quit whining by speedtux · · Score: 1

    Politics, threats, aggression, cowardice, and war are as much part of what makes us human as cooperation, kindness, and empathy. It's the struggle between the two that makes us human and drives progress. Without one or the other, we'd be mindless drones or breeding rabbits.

  42. How is North Korea a threat to the US? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Educated minds already know.

    2. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Umm... no they don't actually. Please inform us. They have nukes, but no way to deploy them. They have a large army, but are incredibly underfunded. The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches. Oh and if by "threat" you mean they could kill a few thousand, then we are talking at cross terms here -- ANYONE could do that, what we are discussing here is whether or not NK has the ability to do REAL damage to the U.S., which I would define as at least knocking the U.S. off of its perch as the dominant superpower. I don't think that any one nation, save China (maybe) has the potential to do that. But hey, you are the smarmy "educated"* one. Please "educate" me.

      *Note: Fox News does not count as education

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    3. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by domatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go. They could kill more than a "few thousand". The destruction of of Seoul and their likely ability to overrun the DMZ means they can be very very destructive until we start bringing in the carriers and massing in our own troops. We would also have to do this while managing China's agitation and China IS a real threat.

      Incidentally trashing SK is also good for causing some financial turmoil in the rest of the world's market. So it would cost a bit of treasure. At least for awhile.

      China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.

    4. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They have nukes, but no way to deploy them

      ICBMs and bombers aren't the only way to deploy nukes. They have merchant ships don't they? They have an intelligence agency don't they?

      The U.S. military could destroy North Korea and be back by lunch if they pulled no punches

      Thanks for demonstrating just how naive you really are. Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons, please explain to me how we could destroy North Korea and be back "by lunch". They have a 1,200,000 man standing army. I don't care how great our advantages in training/tactics and technology are -- we can't simply destroy them and be back home in time for lunch. We would own the oceans and the skies near/over the battlefield and I'm sure the kill ratio would tilt heavily in our favor -- but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties. Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.

      what we are discussing here is whether or not NK has the ability to do REAL damage to the U.S., which I would define as at least knocking the U.S. off of its perch as the dominant superpower

      NK has the ability to do real damage to at least one critical ally (South Korea) of the United States and perhaps another (Japan). If the United States can't be relied on to defend our friends then we will be knocked off that perch. We enjoy the position that we have because of our relationships with our allies. The United States without allies/basing rights/trading partners is a Western Hemisphere power.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go

      That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out. We know where a lot of it is and the remainder would reveal itself as soon as they fired the first volley. Between counter-battery fire and US/ROK airpower those artillerymen would have a short and exciting life once the shooting started. The destruction of Seoul isn't very likely -- it wouldn't escape undamaged but it wouldn't be a modern day Dresden either.

      their likely ability to overrun the DMZ

      This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil. It's easier to destroy their forces if they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. As Patton said during the Battle of the Bulge, "Let's have the guts to let the Krauts go all the way to Paris. Then, we'll cut them off and chew them up."

      China seems to use NK the same way a redneck likes to keep a slobbering pitbull on a chain prominently on display in his back yard. Sure you can just shoot the nasty thing dead but it won't be the end of it and it isn't much use talking to it. The redneck is the one you have to reason with.

      ROFL! That's the best analogy ever :)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    6. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by mkeeler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Supposedly by next year NK will have icbms which could launch a nuclear warhead to California. Me here on the east coast is safe, but there are 26 or so million people living on that coast who I am sure do not want to be at the mercy of that lunatic dictator. There are other countries that have the capability to hurt as just as much. The difference is that they are not fanatical like North Korea. Until the fascist dictator is gone (including all his descendants) North Korea will pose a threat. Even after they are gone, there will have to be a major political revolution and cooperation with other countries in order for them to not be a threat. On another point, I think North Korea has showed just how powerless and useless the United Nations really is. When dealing with non-cooperative nations diplomacy and sanctions do nothing but to spur more hatred and make them more resilient. Military force is the only way to MAKE them understand and cooperate.

    7. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by necro81 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh and if by "threat" you mean they could kill a few thousand, then we are talking at cross terms here -- ANYONE could do that

      If they understand a few things about America, then they realize that they really can do damage by killing a few thousand - look at all the idiocy we inflicted upon ourselves after al Qaeda killed a few thousand of us.

      And it's not like North Korea needs to do it themselves to gain a strategic advantage from it. It is true they have nukes, but no (conventional) way to deploy them. But our borders and shipping routes are pretty porous, and there are plenty of non-state actors out there that could smuggle a weapon in. A single blast to a major American city would do lots of damage well beyond just the death toll.

      Knocking us off the pedestal by overwhelming force is not the only possible or fruitful goal.

    8. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, educated minds do not run our government!

    9. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by mspohr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to be under the same cowboy delusion that sold us an easy win in Iraq 'with flowers for the liberators'. Your appalling lack of geopolitical (not to mention military) knowledge is remarkable but unfortunately all too common in the US.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    10. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with most of the above, but massed "human wave" attacks against even moderately developed economies are obsolete. They've never been a great idea in the past century, but now they are downright suicidal. Cluster munitions are designed for exactly this scenario, as are tactical (not strategic) nuclear weapons, as are various unmanned ("drone") weapons some of which are not public knowledge. We can't keep NK from doing damage to SK and JP, and we also can't keep guerilla forces in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan from doing significant harm to our troops there. But if NK forces decided to storm the DMZ, probably not even 10% would make it through alive. I don't believe even Kim Jong Il would be crazy enough to try this, and most people in SK seem to agree . . they seem to feel reasonably confident, more than I would in their shoes but not totally without reason, that NK has no reason to attack, and every reason not to, and the warlike posture of its leadership is mainly for domestic consumption (much like the anti-Israel rantings of various leaders in North Africa that will never be in a position to harm Israel, but can't win elections unless they promise to).

    11. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can think of no good ways that they are a direct threat but the fact they would trash the northern half of South Korea in the first half hour of a hot war is one deterrent. They've been training massive amounts of long range artillery of Seoul for years and that would be the first thing to go.

      I'm having trouble finding Seoul and South Korea on a map of the United States.

      If the Koreas start fighting again, why should the US get involved? We are not the world police. We should not be taking on that role--if nothing else, we can't afford it. The UN was created to handle stuff like that, so let the UN deal with it.

    12. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wow. Just wow. I have seen a lot of stupid replies to my comment, but congrats, mspohr, you win. You packed so much stupid into two sentences that I don't even know where to start... Cowboy delusion? Flowers for the liberators? I am incredibly anti-interventionist, and I think the Iraq War is one of the worst decisions this nation has ever made (and I thought so when I first heard that it was on the horizon). The precise problem in Iraq is that it was a police action, and that we pulled almost all of our punches. We set unattainable goals (not even sure what they are anymore). If our goal in Iraq had been to just go in and decimate them, and we pulled no punches, the war would have been over in about 30 minutes. I made not statement as to what we should do, only what we could do. We have enough nuclear weapons to turn North Korea into a sheet of glass by 10 AM today. This is a fact. There is absolutely no disputing this. I obviously know all of the ramifications, and again, am making no statement about what we ought to do, just what we are capable of. So please, try to address the actual content of the comment next time, rather than just vomiting out a random mess of thoughts that are currently passing through your simian mind.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    13. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of the above, but massed "human wave" attacks against even moderately developed economies are obsolete. They've never been a great idea in the past century, but now they are downright suicidal.

      Where did I say anything about human wave attacks? All I said was that eventually infantry engagements would break out and that in those types of engagements it's impossible to avoid a comparatively large number of American casualties. It just isn't possible to destroy the entire North Korean army with air and armor.

      Cluster munitions are designed for exactly this scenario

      The problem with air power is that it's not always available and from a logistical standpoint it's hugely expensive. Even the brief (compared to what a Korean War II would be) Iraq War drained our arsenal of bombs and spare parts to such an extent that the Pentagon had to undertake a crash program to replenish them. War fighting is primarily about logistics, not tactics as is commonly believed. It's doubtful that we have the logistical train to keep the Air Force stocked with parts and bombs long enough to destroy the North Korean Army with air power alone.

      That means that the Army will have to get involved and that means that we will take heavy (for us) casualties. The NK'ers would get the worst of it of course but I don't think many American politicians want to see another conflict in which thousands of Americans come home in body bags. Granted, we've seen that in Iraq, but that was over the course of years -- not weeks as would be the case with a second Korean War.

      But if NK forces decided to storm the DMZ, probably not even 10% would make it through alive

      The plan isn't to fight them at the DMZ. The plan is to counter-attack into North Korea proper to cut them off and threaten Pyongyang. Fighting a static engagement at the DMZ would play to their strengths, not ours.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    14. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by domatic · · Score: 1

      Just where do you think the UN gets the wherewithal to handle such a situation? The UN handled them back in the fifties and I seem to recall we played a large part in that. Though getting into it with NK is debatable, you DON'T wait for an aggressor to mass troops or an armada outside your borders to deal with. Letting one dominate a region you have interests in probably isn't such a hot idea either.

    15. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      To whomever modded this down -- please remember that disagreeing with someone does not make them a troll, and that voicing an unpopular opinion does not make one a flame warrior.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    16. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out.

      Doesn't have to. Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them - about 16 for every square kilometer of Seoul's area.
      And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.

      This will sound counter-intuitive but we actually want them to overrun the DMZ. We pulled the bulk of our forces back from the DMZ many years ago. The current plan calls for a counterattack into North Korea to cut them off/go after Pyongyang rather than meeting them at the DMZ and fighting for every inch of ROK soil.

      And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how? NK doctrine (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas backed by special ops in the enemy rear - the plan you mention plays right into that strategy.

      NK is a hostage negotiation, not strategic diplomacy.

    17. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.

      It's called cluster munitions. Air burst bombs. The only reason we are on the ground fighting against guys with AK-47s is because we want to control the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. But against infantry formations of an opponent in their own country, well, we could just bomb the hell out of them.

      --
      This is my sig.
    18. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Each piece (which, BTW NK has had over 50 years to dig in and fortify) only needs to get off a handful of shots to level Seoul (population 10M) and cause appalling civilian casualties when they have 10,000 of them

      They don't have 10,000 pieces of long range artillery. According to this they only have about 10k-11k total pieces of artillery.

      And that's not counting the nukes, which don't need a fancy delivery system since Seoul is only about 40 km from the border.

      They still need some sort of delivery system, unless you think they can slingshot their Fat Man sized bombs 40 kilometers. Besides, nukes are a moot point. If they use one they lose the war and the regime doesn't survive. I'd be more worried about them using one when it became apparent that defeat was inevitable and even at that I'd be worried about them using it in the tactical sense (put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation and wait -- no delivery system needed) than trying to get one into Seoul.

      And that strategy protects the civilian population of Seoul how?

      Who said they were going to make it all the way to Seoul? Did you pay any attention at all to what I said? They are easier to destroy when they are out in the open conducting offensive operations. They set themselves up to be cut off and make their supply lines vulnerable to American/ROK air power.

      NK doctrine [globalsecurity.org] (warning: pdf) is for a quick and decisive victory with overwhelming force concentrated in small areas

      Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.

      backed by special ops in the enemy rear

      Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans but even that is only going to delay the inevitable -- and special ops won't be much use against aircraft carriers or our bases in Japan.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      China... "We Put the 'Red' in Redneck!"

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    20. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      The only reason we are on the ground fighting against guys with AK-47s is because we want to control the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan

      And we don't want to control the ground in South Korea?

      well, we could just bomb the hell out of them.

      It's not that simple. See my other post and pay attention to the part about logistics.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    21. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Even children can understand alliances.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    22. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Is0m0rph · · Score: 1

      Umm how long do you think that artillery would last? There's 11 major large air force bases in SK including the US Osan base 45 miles South the DMZ and Kusan about 100 miles South. Seoul would take some damage but there's no way it would be destroyed. We have a large presence in SK we would not need to wait on any carriers to inflict massive air strikes on the DMZ area.

    23. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons, please explain to me how we could destroy North Korea and be back "by lunch". They have a 1,200,000 man standing army.

      Level Pyongyang conventionally. Promise the top surviving army official we'll save some lunch for him if he surrenders.

    24. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Bobnova · · Score: 1

      How is defeat not inevitable from the very beginning?

    25. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      NK *currently* has no viable deployment for their nuclear weapons. They have shown advancing capability in this arena. So, their future abilities may include being able to strike at north america.

      They can strike Japan and SK now, nuclear or conventional.

      They also are nestled right up against China, who have shown a good deal of willingness to shelter them.

      You will recall that the Korean war was going *very* poorly for NK until MacArthur got too close to the Chinese border, and the Chinese decided to get involved.

      So, while America has shown a surprising ability to project power at a distance ( Iraq ), the calculus of knowing when the Chinese would decide to get involved makes the notion of wiping the floor with the NK army a dicey situation.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    26. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Kim Jong Il could be a cockroach from Outer Space with access to advanced technology and Team America might fail to stop him because of a love triangle?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    27. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      And we don't want to control the ground in South Korea?

      That's what South Koreans are there for.

      It's not that simple. See my other post [slashdot.org] and pay attention to the part about logistics.

      You forgot about the Navy in your posts, and only included the Air Force. The Navy has a much better logistical train than the AF does because its designed for that. You park a bunch of carriers off of the coast of NK and bomb away. You rotate carriers in and out continuously as needed to keep up a constant number of flights. If we have to we can reactivate several older carriers and accelerate construction of new ones. We could even theoretically bring in a battleship out of mothballs (again), for close in support.

      --
      This is my sig.
    28. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I was an Intel Analyst in the US Army specializing in North Korea. When people say the North Korea is a threat to the US and it's allies, they really mean "and it's allies". North Korea could wipe Seoul of the face of the earth before we'd even have a chance to respond. They can't win the war, but then could easily kill millions of our allies in less then an hour. North Korea's threat to Seoul is probably the only thing we're afraid of. 10 million people is a lot of lives to lose.

      P.S. North Korea wouldn't use nukes or other WMD to take Seoul down, they have a massive amount of convention artillery that can quickly do the job.

    29. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out. We know where a lot of it is and the remainder would reveal itself as soon as they fired the first volley.

      (Gonna loose my funny mod point for this but)

      I'm not sure you are aware of the situation on the DMZ.

      They've basically had 50 years to fortify it with hidden and underground emplacements.

      And what we do know of has more than we have anti-missile barrages and laser interception technology.

      We would have to deploy several carrier tasks forces and get half our air force in the air to get every single one of them.

      And it only takes one canister of chemical to air burst of nerve gas to take out tens of thousands of people.

      Is that something you want to risk?

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    30. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's what South Koreans are there for.

      So the eighth army is just window dressing?

      You forgot about the Navy in your posts, and only included the Air Force. The Navy has a much better logistical train than the AF does because its designed for that. You park a bunch of carriers off of the coast of NK and bomb away. You rotate carriers in and out continuously as needed to keep up a constant number of flights

      I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point was that we wouldn't be able to destroy them with air power alone before the Army had to get involved. Once the Army gets involved our casualty count goes up, hence we can't talk about destroying North Korea as though it's a zero sum game. It comes with costs that most of the armchair generals here are trying to pretend don't exist.

      If we have to we can reactivate several older carriers and accelerate construction of new ones. We could even theoretically bring in a battleship out of mothballs (again), for close in support.

      Once again you are ignoring the logistical consideration. You think we have trained crews collecting a paycheck while they wait at Norfolk for a phone call to go and man those mothballed ships? You think the ships themselves are ready to go as soon as Obama picks up the phone? No, you need to train the guys who man them and refurbish/repair them before they are ready for deployment. It's a process that would take months to years depending on how many you want to reactivate and what kind of shape they are in.

      Barring the intervention of another global power (China and/or Russia) the war would be over long before any mothballed ships joined the fleet or new ones came off the slipways. I'm not saying we wouldn't win the war -- I'm just saying that the cost of destroying North Korea is higher than we want to pay. We'd fight the war if we had no other choice and we'd prevail -- but no sane individual in Washington, Seoul or Tokyo wants to see that happen.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    31. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Having a million troops is meaningless...That just shows they're still in the WW1/WW2 mentality of having large masses of men run at each other with guns.

      Modern warfare simply does not work that way. If we got in a shooting war with N. Korea, our superior experience, equipment, and training would make the war short and brutal.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    32. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I wanted to risk anything. If you've read my posts in this story you'd see that I'm trying to point out the costs of a war with NK. Costs that the armchair /. generals are pretending don't exist. All I intended to say was that if war breaks in spite of those costs that the DMZ artillery will have a rather short and exciting life. You think that artillery isn't one of the first targets for ROK and US air power? You say they've had 50 years to fortify it -- I say that the ROK and US has had 50 years to plan it's destruction.

      And it only takes one canister of chemical to air burst of nerve gas to take out tens of thousands of people.

      If that happened then Pyongyang would disappear in a blinding flash. It has long been US policy to regard chemical weapons as a weapon of mass destruction and to respond accordingly. You think we'd let them gas Seoul and not respond?

      Of course it's all bluster in the end. The goal of the regime in North Korea is to survive. Going to war with the ROK and/or United States would see the downfall of the regime. The biggest concern with North Korea is that they will sell their weapons of mass destruction to stateless actors that aren't going be nearly as restrained in how they employ them.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      So the eighth army is just window dressing?

      The eight army is a tripwire. Those guys are in South Korea to get killed or injured in a North Korean attack to motivate the American people towards war if North Korea should attack South Korea. If those guys weren't there, Americans would have the option of just blowing off the conflict, and they might.

      I'm afraid you've missed the point. The point was that we wouldn't be able to destroy them with air power alone before the Army had to get involved.

      It really depends on how much help North Korea has from China. That's the thing. In our last major ground engagement where we used airpower the right way - gulf war I, the amount of contact with the enemy by ground forces was kept to a minimum and Iraq took terrible casualties from tactical air. Iraq 1991 and North Korea today are roughly comparable, and if anything Iraq 1991 was a stronger foe because they have some money coming in from oil. The thing is, though, is how much aid North Korea might receive from China. If China supplies North Korea with advanced ground to air missiles, air defense, systems, etc, then, our air war would have a major problem because we would not achieve any real air dominance and that would allow north korean ground troops freedom of movement.

      So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.

      --
      This is my sig.
    34. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Seoul is 30 miles from the DMZ. A modern Rooskie designed 152mm gun with rocket assisted projectiles has a range of 33,000m, which is still short of getting to Seoul. Even a monster like the 180mm S-23 can only get out to 42,000m with RAP rounds.

      This proposed NK artillery barrage would certainly inflict casualties, but it wouldn't flatten Seoul, would it? Does the DPRK have something else with a longer range? I don't know of any tube or rocket artillery with a 30 mile range. Hell even the 16" monsters from Iowa class BBs had a range of around 40,000m

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    35. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      Well, our military did destroy the Iraqi army and capture Saddam Hussein in short order. I have tremendous confidence in our ability to defeat (significantly less technologically advanced) conventional armies and topple regimes quickly. That seems not to be the hard part. The hard part is occupying a country and filling a power vacuum.

    36. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      --Unless you purpose using nuclear weapons--

      And we would have to get a green light from China. Speaking of that maybe we ought to go after China instead before they ask for all the money back that we owe them. That has been known to start a war or two. Country with lots of military power with lots of military power and a failing economy might need to take some resources to stay in #1 position. Doesn't Iraq have quite a few oil reserves?

      I have a plan loosely quoted from somewhere hitherto:

            1. The five fundamental factors that define a successful outcome (the Way, seasons, terrain, leadership, and management). By thinking, assessing and comparing these points you can calculate a victory, deviation from them will ensure failure. Remember that war is a very grave matter of state.
            2. Understand the economy of war and how success requires making the winning play, which in turn, requires limiting the cost of competition and conflict.
            3. Define the source of strength as unity, not size, and the five ingredients that you need to succeed in any war.
            4. Understand the importance of defending existing positions until you can advance them and how you must recognize opportunities, not try to create them.
            5. Understand the use of creativity and timing in building your momentum.
            6. Understand how your opportunities come from the openings in the environment caused by the relative weakness of your enemy in a given area.
            7. Understand the dangers of direct conflict and how to win those confrontations when they are forced upon you.
            8. There is a need for flexibility in your responses. Understand how to respond to shifting circumstances successfully.
            9. Evaluate the intentions of others.
          10. Understand the three general areas of resistance (distance, dangers, and barriers) and the six types of ground positions that arise from them. Each of these six field positions offer certain advantages and disadvantages.
          11. Understand the nine situations describe nine common situations (or stages) in a campaign, from scattering to deadly, and the specific focus you need to successfully navigate each of them.
          12. Then attack by fire. Understand the five targets for attack, the five types of environmental attack, and the appropriate responses to such attack.
          13. Develop good information sources, specifically the five types of sources and how to manage them.

      Now I really think that plan might just work.

    37. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't think we can talk on such vague terms as "destroy North Korea".

      Could we cripple North Korea's economy, military and government if we don't give a damn how we do it or who gets hurt? Sure. We could nuke them, and what we could do with conventional weapons isn't far behind.

      Could we easily defeat it's 1.2 million man army? Depends on the nature of the engagement. In any kind of "capture the flag" scenario where our objective is to capture or better yet destroy any particular thing, probably. The total size of the army doesn't matter, what matters is how many troops you can put where they are needed and how quickly. This is precisely the kind of low tech, brute force army we've built our military to defeat in any kind of engagement where the objectives are to capture and hold or destroy places.

      Can we easily pacify the country with our military? No way, especially after tactics have been developed in Iraq that target our weaknesses at that kind of mission. Can we solve the agricultural and economic problems of North Korea with our military? Uh, uh. Can we defend South Korea against a determined ground attack? Yes, but it could get costly if North Korea gets outside help, and those big subterranean gun emplacements just over the DMZ can easily hit Seoul. My buddy who was a fire control officer on a AC-130 gunship claims they could get most of them before they even got a shot off, and under the right conditions he's probably correct, but I don't doubt there are a lot of "depends ons" in that scenario.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    38. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Repossessed · · Score: 1

      There's a worst case scenario involved in China supplied NK with advanced missiles as well, China has missiles that will turn those aircraft carriers you mentioned a few posts back into so much scrap iron. Even if the tens of thousands of sailors on the ships that would be taken out somehow survived, you're looking at probably a billion dollars in damage every time a carrier gets hit.

      This is of course assuming that NK doesn't have anti ship ballistic missles of their own. The tech is 40 years old, and while an old Russian anti-destroyer missile wouldn't necessarily sink a super-carrier, any strike on the flight deck would be crippling.

      And before you go talking about the vaunted missile defenses these things have, you should be aware that those won't function against ballistic missiles.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    39. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      So, my argument, is really, yeah, we could probably kick North Korea's rear if we wanted too, but, the price of admission to that ring is a larger war with China, and that, my friend, does not seem worth it.

      I've never argued that we should go to war with North Korea, although I question that the Chinese would get involved. They do like having North Korea around as a buffer but they've lost patience with them as of late and I don't think they view the buffer as important enough to go to war with their most important trading partner.

      But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans. Other than that we should let them rot on the vine and refuse to be intimidated by their antics.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    40. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Does the DPRK have something else with a longer range?

      Who know, maybe they still have some vintage WWI pieces somewhere.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Gun

    41. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So they are a threat to S. Korea. That's not good and I wouldn't want anything to happen to S. Korea, but hasn't the U.S. yet learned the value of MYOB? We have quite enough home-grown problems to solve right now.

    42. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually invading N.Korea to impose our own ideas of a correct government would make the Iraq fiasco look like a training exercise. However, that's not necessary if the objective is to break it's back to keep it from threatening the U.S. and it's allies. Air strikes really could knock it down so that it would take years to recover.

      That's exactly what the new super bunker buster is intended to do.

    43. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      China has missiles that will turn those aircraft carriers you mentioned a few posts back into so much scrap iron

      I really wish the people who keep repeating this line would bother to educate themselves about Naval warfare. The most important aspect of Naval warfare isn't the weapons systems that you have or even the number of ships at your disposal. The most important aspect (see the Battle of Midway if you doubt this) is locating the enemy before he locates you. Those missiles are useless if you don't know where the carrier is. So how do you find it?

      Satellites aren't the magical talismans that people think they are -- radar ones can be jammed and/or decoyed with radar reflectors/blip enhancers. Photo ones can be rendered moot by cloud cover. IR ones can be decoyed with IR lures, flares and firepots. All types are limited by orbital mechanics. It's possible for a warship to steam a course that avoids coming into the line of sight of enemy satellites, although it obviously limits where you can go and your freedom of action. Satellites can also be shot down during a shooting war.

      Other platforms that can locate the carrier have their own drawbacks. Submarines can't easily communicate with base without risking detection. They also have a hard time keeping up with an aircraft carrier without losing sonar effectiveness and/or risking detection. Surface ships and aircraft will be detected and engaged before they can get close enough to locate the task force. It really isn't as easy to locate or engage an American carrier battle group as most of the armchair warriors on the internet seem to think.

      And before you go talking about the vaunted missile defenses these things have, you should be aware that those won't function against ballistic missiles.

      Really now? Are you sure about that?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    44. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      HA! Reason with a redneck? Only if you can outgun 'im. And the only thing to tell him is to drop those panties.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    45. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by P0ltergeist333 · · Score: 2, Informative

      First off, let me make point you to what I actually said:

      N. Korea (sic) truly IS a threat to the US and it's allies.

      You attack an ally of the US, and you are attacking the US... period.

      Chemical weapons:
      http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUST32127420090618
      Don't like Reuters?
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3440771.stm
      Don't like the BBC?
      http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2009/07/20097165415127287.html

      They have had the ACTUAL (not imagined, like Iraq) capability to build and explode a nuclear device.

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/north-korea-hiroshima-nuclear-test

      Last, but certainly NOT least Delivery technology: (from Wiki)

      # Nodong-1 â" larger and more advanced Scud modification. Liquid-fueled, road-mobile missile with a 650 kg warhead. First production variants had inertial guidance, later variants featured GPS guidance, which improves CEP accuracy to 190â"250 m.[43] Range is estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,600 km.
      # Nodong-2 â" further improved variant of the Nodong-1, successfully tested in 2006. Range is estimated at about 2,000 km.
      # Taepodong-1 â" two-stage Scud-derived missile. Has been tested with a satellite payload in 1998. The satellite failed, but the missile apparently flew without significant problems, therefore it is North Korea's longest-ranged operational missile with its 2,500 km maximum range. According to some analysts, the Taepodong-1 could have an intercontinental range of nearly 6,000 km with a third stage and a payload of less than 100 kg.[44][45]
      # Musudan-1 â" a modified copy of the Soviet R-27 Zyb SLBM. No tests of this missile have ever been made, but it is known to be operationally deployed. Most probably it is used as a first stage to the Taepodong-2. The missile, also known under the names Nodong-B, Taepodong-X and BM25, has a range of 4,000 kilometers.
      # Taepodong-2 â" North Korea's domestic ICBM attempt. First test occurred in 2006, when the missile failed 40 seconds after launch. On April 5, 2009, a space booster variant was launched with a satellite on board. As with in 1998, the satellite itself failed to reach orbit, but the missile flew several thousand kilometers before falling in the Pacific Ocean. Estimates of the range vary widely â" from 4,500 to 10,000 kilometers (most estimates put the range at about 6,700 km).

      I'm not going to bother with multiple citations, since if you haven't started investigating on your own, then you're a zealot, and no amount of facts will convince you.

      --
      One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces. - PF
    46. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your ignorance is astounding

      Numbers mean squat when you cannot supply them or move them. Units mean nothing when you cannot command them.

      And to add to that problem, the NKor Army is a Soviet Model army, tightly controlled from the top down. Supplies are not sent without the proper forms and units are not moved without the proper orders.

      The Command and Control capability of the NKor military would be utterly destroyed within the first 12 hours between direct strikes and electronic warfare. Logistics within the first 48.

      No Gas, No Bullets, No Food, No Orders, No Command, No Initiative

      How do you suppose Mr Kashnikov's wonderful weapon works when it is out of ammo, and the soldier holding it has no food, and is bombed every time his unit attempts to move, and he has no orders and no initiatve of his own?

      The major real threat is the NKor artillery thats within range of Seoul. But even that would not last for long against counterbattery and airstrikes, not to mention the massed fires woudl be unsustainable in the face of the collapse of the NKor logistics system.

      So, in short, you're damnably ignorant and dead wrong in your lame "analysis"regarding modern military affairs in the Korean front.

      Go back and try learning something about modern military operational art before you attempt to display your ignorance again.

    47. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then we are fucked, every body knows that rednecks do not have capacity of reason, better give the rabies to the pitbull so it bites the redneck and the redneck kill it with a hammer or a chainsaw or something

    48. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      Their special ops units would be a PITA but are not enough in of themselves to be decisive. I would use them against American/ROK airbases if I was the North Koreans

      Attention NK SpecOps teams: Do not attack Air Force bases. You will run in to a squadron of heavily armed, well-trained, and most importantly *bored* security forces airmen who have spent 9 hours a day for the last 4 years sitting in a truck on the flighline watching the tarmac and waiting... Just waiting... For the opportunity to do something more exciting than picking at the dashboard.

      Seriously, you'd be better off storming the marines. These SF airmen desperately *want* you to attack so they'll have something to do.

      (Only half joking ;)

      -b (not SF, thank god)

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    49. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      North Korea also has chemical artillery pointed all at Seoul. While a cease fire was a good thing, the consequent amassment of troops and weapons of mass destruction has turned South Korea into North Korea's hostage.

      Projections indicate that MILLIONS of South Koreans would die within the first hour of war breaking out.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    50. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      That artillery wouldn't last very long if a shooting war broke out.

      It wouldn't have to. North Korea is essentially holding Seoul hostage. Projections indicate that North Korea would kill millions of people in the first hour after war breaking out, through the use of chemical artillery.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    51. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      If the Koreas start fighting again, why should the US get involved?

      Because the Korean War never ended. We are still in a state of conflict with North Korea. That won't end until one side surrenders or offers a peace treaty. And North Korea is evidently not interested, even if they don't intend to start war. However, they will walk into South Korea if we leave.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    52. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suppression by Superior Fire Power.... that's how it's done.
      Arty does his job, the rest follows suit....

      Don't understand? do some homework and figure it out. I hear Google is cool.

    53. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      If NK did decide to wage war, it would be out of desperation. Think of it as a form of "suicide-by-cop". When your a militaristic nation such as NK, it would be better to go out in a blaze of glory than wither away into obscurity. It's all about saving face/honor and all that stuff.

      In order for NK to be pacified should the need arise, it might required entire NK cities to be annihilated by whatever means necessary. We are not talking about some piss and Iraqi Shock-and-Awe, we are talking about a vast amount of brainwashed population spanning many generation dieing. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki all over again.

      For the sake of humanity, I truly hope it doesn't come to war. Human nature and history tends to repeat itself however.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    54. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans.

      I do not see the reason for Americans to go to war to protect either the South Koreans or the Japanese.

      --
      This is my sig.
    55. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I do not see the reason for Americans to go to war to protect either the South Koreans or the Japanese

      How about the fact that we have a security alliance with Japan and that the mission of defending South Korea has a UN mandate?

      Do you also think that we have no obligation to defend Australia, New Zealand or our NATO allies?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    56. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by mjwx · · Score: 1
      Small point of contention,

      put one somewhere in the path of an advancing American/ROK formation

      What you should be saying is Flanking Allied forces (more then just US/SK forces involved, the JSDF, NZDF/ADF both have a seriously vested interest in this theoretical conflict and wont be on the sidelines). Couldn't speak for Europe or ASEAN but the UK/Canada will do something even if it's only just a field kitchen (I keed, my maple loving brethren).

      Secondly the DMZ is one giant minefield, set up as a kill zone and a significant portion of artillery on both sides will have it zeroed in. You'd have to be certifiably mad to advance through it. Common sense suggest a flanking manoeuvre into NK.

      Slightly larger point of contention.

      Overwhelming force concentrations play right into our advantages. Go take a look at military history ranging from WW2 to the Persian Gulf and tell me how well massed force concentrations manage against American air power.

      Korea is a very hilly country. We found this one out the hard way in the 50's when the US tried to apply WWII style tactics to a different terrain. You will not encounter such concentrations due entirely to Korea's topography.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    57. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      But either way, no, the price of admission is not worth it. We should go to war with them if needed to protect the Japanese or South Koreans.

      I do not see the reason for Americans to go to war to protect either the South Koreans or the Japanese.

      I've never argued that we should go to war with North Korea, although I question that the Chinese would get involve

      The Chinese got involved before. If that's not a clear statement, I don't know what is. How would the USA react if China invaded Mexico?

      --
      This is my sig.
    58. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Yeah? And just what the hell do you think those 1.2M troops are going to do? March over here to the U.S. to kill us?

      No, you have to look at the strategic and tactical situation. For once (unless they invaded SK, which would be stupid), there is no need for ground war. High-precision-target their offensive capability, and MOAB their troops when they gather to mobilize. There is no need for a single U.S. soldier to set foot on their soil.

    59. Re:How is North Korea a threat to the US? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If they did that the war would be over within 12 hours and the regime of Kim Jong iL would be at an end. There could only be one response for a chemical weapons massacre of millions of civilians. Here's a hint: It would involve a fancy briefcase and a small plastic card carried on President Obama's person.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  43. Roadrunner cartoon by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    LOL....I can see N Korea launching one of these from a plane......it will be like the Coyote dropping the anvil from a balloon. Geez......North Korea & Iran spending tons on crap like these, while 99% of their country starves.

    1. Re:Roadrunner cartoon by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Uh, this is an American bomb dude... re-read the summary

  44. How is the US health care system? by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 0, Troll

    And education?

    And housing?

    Once everything is done and dusted, who will be better off? Who will be worst off? (hint: politicians and CEOs of companies enriching itselves with the fat contracts are not going to be the ones harmed in another round of military adventurism).

      When are USians going to wake up and smell the coffee?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
  45. Re: "Sure, the Russians helped the effort" by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    Please STFU and read a book. May i suggest the following:
    "June 22, 1941" Soviet Historians And The German Invasion - Vladimir Petrov
    800 Days On The Eastern Front: A Soviet Soldier Remembers World War II - Nikolai Litvin
    The 900 Days: The Siege Of Leningrad - Harrison E. Salisbury
    The End Of The Third Reich - Vasili I. Chuikov
    From Stalingrad To Pillau: A Red Army Artillery Officer Remembers The Great Patriotic War - Isaak Kobylyanskiy
    The Great Patriotic War - Peter G. Tsouras
    Harvest Of Despair: Life And Death In Ukraine Under Nazi Rule - Karel C. Berkhoff
    Island Of Fire: The Battle For The Barrikady Gun Factory In Stalingrad November 1942 - February 1943 - Jason D. Mark
    Ivan's War: Life And Death In The Red Army 1939-1945 - Catherine Merridale
    The Last Six Months: Russia's Final Battles With Hitler's Armies In World War II - S.M. Shtemenko
    Moscow 1941 - Stalingrad 1942 Recollections Stories Reports - Vladimir Sevruk
    The Road To Berlin: Continuing The History Of Stalin's War With Germany - John Erickson
    The Road To Stalingrad: Stalin's War With Germany Volume I - John Erickson
    Russia At War 1941-1945 - Alexander Werth
    The Russian Front 1941-1945 - Bob Carruthers and John Erickson
    The Russian Version Of The Second World War: The History Of The War As Taught To Soviet Schoolchildren - Graham Lyons
    The Siege Of Leningrad 1941-1944: 900 Days Of Terror - David M. Glantz
    Stalin's Guerillas: Soviet Partisans In World War II - Kenneth Slepyan
    Stalingrad: How The Red Army Triumphed - Michael K. Jones
    Tank Rider: Into The Reich With The Red Army - Evgeni Bessonov
    Through The Maelstrom: A Red Army Soldier's War On The Eastern Front, 1942-1945 - Boris Gorbachevsky
    The Unknown War - Harrison E. Salisbury
    Voices From Stalingrad - Jonathan Bastable
    Without Vodka: Adventures In Wartime Russia - Aleksander Topolski
    Writer At War: Vasily Grossman With The Red Army 1941-1945 - Anthony Beevor and L. Vinogradova

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  46. More metric conversion fun by dtmos · · Score: 1

    I was amused to see that Reuters, of all organizations, reports that 21,000-pounds is equal to 9.5 million kg. I guess it's safe to assume that someone who went to a US high school made the conversion.

    (It's actually 9.5 million g, or 9500 kg.)

  47. Better than "Rods from God?" by wisebabo · · Score: 1

    So is this better than the "Rods from God" ballistically launched sub-orbital titanium rods (as large as a telephone pole I've heard) at penetrating bunkers?

    They don't need a billion dollar manned bomber to deliver it (only a $10 million ICBM). Delivery time is faster too. Accuracy I'm not so sure about. Probably more impressive watching it come down as well (how many weapons would you see that had a reentry trail behind it AND lived to talk about it afterwards?).

    1. Re:Better than "Rods from God?" by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Accuracy I'm not so sure about.

      That's the sucky part. "Close" only counts with nuclear weapons.

      Also, launching ICBMs can have nasty international repercussions, regardless of their payload.

    2. Re:Better than "Rods from God?" by JayPee · · Score: 1

      Tungsten, not titanium. Tungsten is heavy, titanium is light, you want heavy, dense materials for kinetic weapons.

  48. Bizzarro world by microbox · · Score: 1

    If it weren't for the U.S. involvement in WWI and WWII, Sweden would be speaking German today, so how's about you get some fucking perspective? Is that too much to ask (he queried, knowing the answer)?

    The USSR and UK bore the brunt of WWII. Esp. the USSR. They are the ones who actually went out and fought the Germans en-masse, developed much of the technology, and did most of the manufacturing. The USA was "the arsenal", but it's debatable if Germany would have been victorious over the UK and the USSR even if the USA didn't step in. The British navy controlled the seas, and the USSR was too big, too cold, and there were too many of them. They also fought tenaciously.

    The US involvement in WWI was late in the game, and after Germany was doomed. Like when the USSR declared war on Japan in 1945.

    You talk about fucking perspective - you'll find it in history books.

    --

    Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    1. Re:Bizzarro world by pudge · · Score: 1

      The USSR and UK bore the brunt of WWII. Esp. the USSR. They are the ones who actually went out and fought the Germans en-masse, developed much of the technology, and did most of the manufacturing.

      Yes.

      it's debatable if Germany would have been victorious over the UK and the USSR even if the USA didn't step in

      We will never know, but it is very unlikely the UK would have survived it, along with most of the rest of Europe. What good is naval superiority when your island nation is completely overrun?

      Granted, the USSR likely would have held Germany off. And then probably would have "liberated" Europe without our help in the end, of course, making the Warsaw Pact much bigger: taking all of Germany, certainly, and Italy and maybe Switzerland and some others. So I take it back: Sweden would be speaking Russian today, not German. Thanks for the correction!

    2. Re:Bizzarro world by microbox · · Score: 1

      So I take it back: Sweden would be speaking Russian today, not German. Thanks for the correction!

      =)

      Read about Operation Sealion - it's fascinating stuff. If Germany was ever going to defeat the UK, they would have done it before the entry of either the USSR or the USA.

      Also, due to some absolutely brilliant technology, determined fighting, (but perhaps mediocre command), the Commonwealth essentially drove the Germans and Italians out of North Africa before the USA really entered that theatre. (Operation torch.)

      Also, don't underestimate the power of the minor nations either. The forces of Norway, Greece, Poland and Finland all gave the Germans and USSR more trouble than it was worth. The Swiss and Swedes had great defences, and would not have been overrun that easily. Hungry, Romania and Finland supported axis, with much needed resources and manpower, but switched sides.

      Perhaps the one *huge* error the Nazi's made was to view the USSR as populated by some homogeneous inferior race. The Ukraine greeted them as liberators - a sentiment short-lived when the Nazi racial policy set in. If the Nazi's really did liberate the Ukraine, then they would have gained access to a vast pool of natural resources and people that probably would have tipped the balance on Russia. There were many other ethnic groups in the USSR who really weren't fond of the Russians as well. Instead, the Nazi's turned a route into "The Great Patriotic War".

      Gotta love hubris.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    3. Re:Bizzarro world by pudge · · Score: 1

      If Germany was ever going to defeat the UK, they would have done it before the entry of either the USSR or the USA.

      That's a fine opinion, but I disagree. Without the U.S. and USSR, Germany would have been able to concentrate its efforts on the UK to even greater effect later.

      Also, due to some absolutely brilliant technology, determined fighting, (but perhaps mediocre command), the Commonwealth essentially drove the Germans and Italians out of North Africa before the USA really entered that theatre.

      Right ... after losing North Africa -- which would've happened about the same time it did, even without America's help -- Germany would have refocused its efforts on the UK itself. IMO. After D-Day, that prospect ended.

      Anyway ... we don't know what would've happened. I of course never meant Sweden would actually be speaking German or Russian, and I recognize that MAYBE Germany would have lost anyway (depending on what Russia tried to do). But the point is simply that not all entries into war are bad, and I presume we can agree on that. :-)

    4. Re:Bizzarro world by microbox · · Score: 1

      I presume we can agree on that. :-)

      Yes - no argument on that. I think the USA has been a little trigger happy in the last 50 years - definitely some grey murky territory at the very least - we can probably agree on that too, right?

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
  49. The US military disagreed with you by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

    They didn't surrender, so the second one was deemed needed.

    Have you ever seen the American casualty count just to take Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

    Iwo Jima: 23, 573 Okinawa: 50, 000

    Now extrapolate that to an invasion of Japan and you'll see why the US army is still using Purple Heart medals it minted for the planned invasion of Japan. They expected close to 500, 000 casualties to invade Japan and possibly more. Some planners expected it to be be between 1M - 4M American casualties.

    Fact is though it was Russia's declaration of war that brought Japan to it's knees. Russian forces combined with American forces would eventually, but not easily, conquer Japan.

    Citation needed. I say that because it appears the parent post has ignored the United States Army Air Forces' own Strategic Bombing Survey, which produced a report that stated, among other things, the following (boldface emphasis mine):

    Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion (of Japan) had been planned or contemplated.

    Further, it is clear that leaders in the US had signs of this before the Strategic Bombing Survey was completed. Japanese codes had been cracked, and messages were being intercepted. The Allies knew that the Japanese ambassador in Moscow had been ordered to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had been talking about surrendering a year before that, and the Emperor himself had started suggesting in June of 1945 that alternatives to fighting to the end should be considered.

    Since the parent post claims it was Russia entering the war that "brought Japan to its knees," I can't forget to mention the following interesting fact: the Russians had agreed to declare war on Japan 90 days after the end of the European war. The actual date of the end of the European war meant that the Russians were due to declare war on Japan on the 8th of August of 1945.

    Oopsie! Damn facts get in the way of a good justifyin'!

    --
    "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
    1. Re:The US military disagreed with you by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 1

      My recollection from a history seminar in which we read a lot of primary sources from the US government and military is that the US was afraid that if Russia were given the time, they'd end up invading half of Japan and keeping it in the same way they ended up keeping East Germany. The atomic bomb was seen as a way to hasten the surrender of Japan (and reduce casualties, they argued, but I'm not arguing that) so that America would be the dominant foreign influence after the conflict ended.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    2. Re:The US military disagreed with you by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, I don't trust the USSBS conclusions. The US Army Air Force had a lot of incentive to show that the non-nuclear strategic bombing worked, and it's one survey's opinion lacking a good deal of modern scholarship. Further, the Japanese had incentive to hold on and see how the next accepted strategy (make invading the Home Islands prohibitively expensive) worked.

      Second, the US knew that the Japanese were interested in a peace based on the status quo, and evacuation (on Japanese terms) of Japanese-occupied areas, with Japan to try its own war criminals. The Allies did not find this acceptable, and it would likely have resulted in massive casualties in China, the East Indies, and other highly populated Japanese-held areas. Heck, Unit 631 released plague-bearing rats in Manchuria as they moved out.

      Third, the US knew that any attempts to negotiate something the Allies might possibly accept were being shot down by the Japanese government. The Japanese asked the Soviets about being a go-between for proposals, and never followed up on that. The Japanese ambassador to the Soviet Union urged the Japanese government to accept any possible terms, including the Potsdam Declaration ones (which were the ones imposed), and was told not to pursue that. Read Downfall, by Richard Frank, for a good account of what the US knew at the time.

      Fourth, my best estimates are that the Japanese were killing between one hundred thousand and two hundred thousand Chinese civilians a month, in various ways. I have no reason to believe this was much diminished in 1945. That means that about two months of additional occupation of China would cause roughly as many deaths, likely more, as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This does not count other highly populated areas.

      Fifth, the Japanese were singularly unprepared for winter, having massive economic disruption and crop failures. Any delay in Japanese surrender was going to kill a whole lot of Japanese, and I've seen precisely no claims that the Japanese were going to surrender almost immediately as a result of US action without the nukes. Remember that any areas occupied by the Soviets were in real trouble because of this.

      Sixth, the Japanese government was preparing to throw the entire local population into invasion defense. Schoolgirls were being trained with bamboo spears. The civilian casualties in an Allied invasion would have been extremely high, vastly greater than those from the nuclear bombings. Note that "Allied" here includes the Soviet Union, which was making plans to invade the northernmost home island. They weren't very good at this oceanic invasion stuff (compare the problems invading the Kuriles islands), but they would have made a fairly large part of Hokkaido into a battlefield.

      These are some of the reasons why I think the nuclear bombs were the right thing to do. Dropping them probably resulted in a net lessening of Japanese civilian deaths, and virtually certainly a lessening of overall civilian deaths. There was perhaps a better course of action, but we can't be at all sure of that even now, and I don't criticize historical decisions unless I know something would have been better.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    3. Re:The US military disagreed with you by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Okay, allow me to retort sir.


      The Japanese were prepared to absorb massive casualties. On August 9 -- after both atomic bombs had fallen -- Gen. Korechika Anami, the War Minister, reviewed Japan's Ketsu Go (Operation Decision) defense plan for the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War. Anami said the military could commit 2,350,000 troops. In addition, commanders could call on four million civil servants. The Japanese cabinet had approved a measure extending the draft to include men from ages fifteen to sixty and women from seventeen to forty-five (an additional 28 million people). Questioned by Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Chief of Staff Yoshijiro Umezu said that, "With luck, we will repulse the invaders before they land. At any rate, I can say with confidence that we will be able to destroy the major part of an invading force."

      Wheeler The Fall Of Japan (WWII). 1983


      The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion. American politicians would then gladly negotiate an end to the war far more generous than unconditional surrender.

      - Frank, Richard B. (2005-08-08). ""Why Truman Dropped the Bomb"". The Weekly Standard.

      .. also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement.

      - Rezelman, David; F.G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner (2000)

      Also I must mention that Russia declared war between the first and second bombing. Some of the posts here argue that the second bombing wasn't necessary. This view, that Russia's entry into the war certainly did matter, was claimed by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan. The Belnap Press of Harvard University Press, 2006

      Oopsie, I got me some of dem der citations and such! Ya smug SOB.

  50. Any excuse to use these by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Just think though, with a few strategically placed drops of these around the world,
    I wonder if you could CRACK the exoshell the earth is made of...and break it in 2?
    They do it with buildings, just take out a few pillars properly, and the whole thing comes down ....we should be careful not to let these get into the wrong hands!!!

  51. Amerrrcca! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    F*** YEAH!!

  52. Just Nuke The Bastards by littlewink · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Since we're just hearing about these, my assumption is that production is long since underway and that we have already offered them to Israel (if not supplied them) a year or so ago, hoping that they'll use them in their Iran air raids instead of nukes.

    But nukes will work while something less may not. And these MOBs are new and untested on the battlefield. Israel can try the new American bombs on the hope that they _may_ work or instead they may simply nuke Iran's facilities with their own bombs guaranteeing success. I would choose the latter and be done with it: close membership in the nuclear club while you still can.

  53. The F-Bomb by mcfatboy93 · · Score: 1

    why do people always seem to make newer and bigger bombs. i say if you want to make a bomb make a Fluorine bomb. that way you can really and metaphorically drop the F-bomb on people.

    --
    Its not my fault, someone put a wall in my way.
  54. pentagon hype, or does it actually work by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    maybe I'm naive, but i'm pretty impressed that somthing can get thru 10s if not 100s of feet of concrete.
    HOwever, - do we have independent verififcation of pentagon claims ?
    maybe the thing doesn't really work, like Postol's study of patriot missles in teh 1st gulf war.

  55. Imperialism (def?) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imperialism isn't something you "exercise" against your peer/competitors. Historically, an empire consists of the satellite countries, areas or regions from which you source the things of value. Britain didn't colonize Germany, France, Spain, Portugal or Holland. It competed in the New World for colonies from which it took resources & 'developed' new lands.

    The U.S. operates over 800 military bases worldwide, and it uses these to maintain it's economic interests in other people's countries. In this respect, we are no different than other many other countries, now or in the past.

    If you want to gain some insight into how little things have changed in the this respect, read The Pentagon's New Map & develop some news sources outside the mainstream that will allow you to see the world in terms of the power structures that *require* a constant movement of financial and physical resources as well as expansion in order to accommodate debt service built into international business, at all its various levels.

    A rose, by any other name, is still a rose.

  56. Errors in DOD Logic as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bomb by definition is a dropped weapon. Not a weapon with a thruster of any kind.

    A missle is a projected weapon. Covering things like, Slingshots, Arrows, RPGs, an nuclear ICBM.

    Due to terminal velocity laws, a dropped item could not reach Mach two speeds, even if it had teflon skin and a tailwind. Neither the B-2 (650 mph) or B-52 (450 mph) could reach Mach two to "push" the Bomb to that speed. So there is either a propelant on board, which makes this a missle, or some new heavy bomber that moves really fast.

    I wonder if the US is calling this a bomb to circumvent any "Missle" Treaties.

    MOP is a good name for it but I would change the name to "O'SLAMA TO NADA".

    Either way I hope to see the video on YouTube when they drop it on the Pakistani boarder.

    1. Re:Errors in DOD Logic as usual by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Either way I hope to see the video on YouTube when they drop it on the Pakistani boarder.

      I doubt it's a weapon to repel pirates.

  57. That worked pretty good with Hitler... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I know it's been a long time since America has engaged in it, but it's called diplomacy, not recon

    Yeah, how many decades of failed diplomacy with North Korea or Iran do you possibly need? I would say that at some point, when someone says they are going to blow you away, and that their God will destroy you, you just have to take them at face value.

    With that said....

    Frankly, I don't even think South Korea is worth America's defense. But, if you want to put American cities on the nuclear table to protect the independence of South Korea, thanks to the efforts of W, we are now closing in on technologies needed to intercept their missiles. I've even written about that previously Here.. And, from a conventional standpoint, North Korea has the economy of Vermont, in this little mashup here It's their northern ally, China, that is the problem.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how many decades of failed diplomacy with North Korea or Iran do you possibly need?

      At the very least, n+1 more then failed wars with Iran or North Korea. Failed diplomacy leaves no bodies, doesn't generate a cycle of hate for the next generation, doesn't cost an absolute fortune (what is US national debt up to today). You can fail at diplomacy as many times as you like and start again from a strong position. You fail at a war just once an no-one can take you seriously any more.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      At the very least, n+1 more then failed wars with Iran or North Korea.

      My point is that if the world will not let us police it adequately, then we should not be trying to police it at all. The world is content to let Iran and North Korea get and spread the bomb? Fine, but I don't want US soldiers having to defend to South Korea... Americans should not have to pay with their lives for the South Korean inability to confront their own security issues. And the same thing goes with other arab nations and Iran... or even Continental Europe for that matter.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      then we should not be trying to police it at all.

      Great idea. Other nations would appreciate if you kept your nose out of our laws (DMCA anyone).

      The world is content to let Iran and North Korea get and spread the bomb?

      Here's the thing, those "arab nutcases" in Pakistan (that's sarcasm) have had the bomb for nearly 20 years, they haven't done anything with it (shock horror). WMD's are only ever useful if they are never used. This seems to be something most seppo's don't understand. Personally I'd rather no nations have the bomb, but lets hear you complain about "removing your ability to defend yourself" when I ask for the US to disarm its WMD. Pot, Kettle, Black.

      Fine, but I don't want US soldiers having to defend to South Korea.

      I'm sure Iraq feels the same about US soldiers. So a war of aggression is fine but the actual hard work, defending without harming others is not. Given the complete uselessness of the US military in recent conflicts (US command had to be replaced in Afghanistan), you don't have much of a leg to stand on here, criticising the other nations of NATO.

      world will not let us police it adequately

      The problem is you have the wrong idea about policing. I understand that you live in the US and may not have seen how a proper police force acts. Police are not allowed to burst into your home and prevent you from committing a crime, they must wait until you have committed a crime and have enough evidence to charge you under law. A police officer must always use his gun and baton as an absolute last resort. The way you propose "policing" the world is more akin to thuggery, in other words its "do as we tell you or we'll bust up your face". To police the world you need to use more diplomacy then violence and that means there will be a lot of failed diplomacy.

      If we were to go to war with North Korea or Iran then you would do nothing but confirm everything these regimes have said about us "evil western dogs". This de-popularises us, where as if we use diplomacy we are very far from interfering with the lives of the average Korean or Persian (Plus Diplomacy is cheaper then war, how's the national debt thing going BTW). Diplomacy is the best thing we can do right now seeing as a deep divide between the Persian people and Arab leadership is emerging in Iran and Kim Jong Il is also stepping down. The regime's are changing on their own, the last thing we want to do is go in there and screw up any chance of these people becoming friendly towards us.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      WMD's are only ever useful if they are never used.

      They worked just fine for Saddam in his war against Iran. Or for the US against Japan.

    5. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      They worked just fine for Saddam in his war against Iran. Or for the US against Japan.

      How is Saddam doing. If he had never used them the US would have had no excuse to invade. As for the US, you're attributing too much to the nuclear weapons. Allow me to explain.

      Japan was ready to surrender by the time of the D-Day landings. On Paper Japan was defeated after 18 months when they started running out of certain types of manufactured resources. Fighting the Indians in the sub-continent took the majority of their forces (yes, the Indians not the US) and most of their resources, their supply lines stretched too thin (same thing happened in the pacific where Australian Infantry were able to push Japanese land forces off Paupa New Guinea). Every Japanese leader knew by 1944 the war was over for Japan, at the outset Admiral Yamamoto said he could not promise more then 18 months of victory so Japan was looking for a means to surrender honourably. The mistake they made was sending their peace emissary through the Soviet Union who, for all the pretences of being allies with the western powers did not want peace between the US and Japan especially with the war against Germany all but over.

      So the Japanese would have surrendered in an instant if given the opportunity to do it without the Emperor looking bad, of course thanks to the soviets the US didn't have a clue about this. Honourable is the key work, Macarthur himself stressed that the surrendering Japanese were to be treated with dignity and respect especially whilst they were signing the surrender. Macarthur for all his faults had more then a clue about the enemy he was fighting which is a lot more than can be said about the US's current military leadership.

      Hindsight however is a wonderful thing.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    6. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      How is Saddam doing.

      That is pretty much irrelevant for a question about the Iran-Iraq war.

      If he had never used them the US would have had no excuse to invade.

      WTH? The US had absofrickenlutely nothing against Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

    7. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      WTH? The US had absofrickenlutely nothing against Iraq using chemical weapons against Iran.

      Now try drawing this one out...

      If Saddam had never used Chemical weapons (not quite the same as WMD's but similar so they get lumped into the same group) in the 1980's would the US have been able to claim that Saddam was a threat in 2003? The Bush administration rode the WMD fallacy right to the end, even now they can't admit they were wrong with all the evidence arrayed against them, it was their sole justification for invasion.

      How is Saddam doing.

      Now I know thinking may be hard for you but please try to put 2+2 together.

      All of the sanctions against Saddam in the 90's were as a direct result of his use of Chemical weapons on civilian targets (the Kurds), the sole justification for the 2003 invasion was the Chemical weapons that Saddam supposedly had stockpiled (how such a large stockpile disappeared without a trace is beyond me).

      Have we connected the dots yet?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      If Saddam had never used Chemical weapons (not quite the same as WMD's but similar so they get lumped into the same group) in the 1980's would the US have been able to claim that Saddam was a threat in 2003?

      Simple: By merely claiming that he may have, or is working on, WMDs. Anyone can claim that, no previous use of these weapons is necessary. Remember all the fancy pictures in the powerpoint presentation? Those weren't just about the existence of WMDs, but about having an active program of developing and building more of them.

      All of the sanctions against Saddam in the 90's were as a direct result of his use of Chemical weapons on civilian targets (the Kurds),

      Yeah ... riiiight. And invading another country had nothing do with the sanctions. Is that what you're trying to claim? Surely it was pure coincidence that the sanctions were passed just four days after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

    9. Re:That worked pretty good with Hitler... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Remember all the fancy pictures in the powerpoint presentation? Those weren't just about the existence of WMDs, but about having an active program of developing and building more of them.

      You also may remember that many people including the world's foremost experts in Chemical/Nuclear/Biological weapons said that Iraq had no WMD's, no capacity to produce WMD's and more importantly no means of deploying a WMD of any kind.

      No evidence has yet been found indicating that Saddam had 1. a stockpile of weapons 2. a weapons production facility or 3. a deployment system. The Every one of Saddam's SCUD's were accounted for, well up until the invasion, they only found 75% of the ones UN inspectors had found prior to 2003.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  58. Do they really? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Please, check out what North Korea really is.

    First off, there's really no need for the USA to involve itself in another war with China to defend South Korea. South Korea is arguably simply not worth it. I've argued that previously on my own site.

    Secondly, North Korea has the economy of Vermont. Every Satellite picture shows an army that is in shambles, a Navy that is barely afloat, massive prison camps, little electricity, not enough food, and that's North Korea. If it were just them, we could flatten them from the air with impunity, and probably shoot down all of the nukes as they were in the air. It's China that is the problem. North Korea is just a loony Chinese puppet and so you have to really view any action against North Korea as an act against China. That killed 50,000 Americans in the 1950s, and a replay would probably kill a lot more.

    I just don't think South Korea is worth it. Samsung makes some good screens, but its not worth Chinese nukes coming down on my head.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Do they really? by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      China really can't afford to send nukes down on your head. They have too much invested in the US economy. I'm not sure exactly why they continue to prop up NK, but it seems that a unified Korea would be best for everyone except perhaps what's his name (the king/emperor of NK). I would expect that diplomacy with China could assure the unification of Korea. I generally agree with you that we don't need to go to war with China to defend SK, but probably for different reasons, as I do think that SK is "worth it". For that matter I think of NK as "worth it".

  59. Re: Neo-Con Creative History by InsertCleverUsername · · Score: 2, Informative

    But Saddam Hussein was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs. Unfortunately for him, he succeeded. Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMDs...

    Sorry, but despite the Neo-Con belief that reality is whatever they say it is, this is total fiction. Colin Powell's PowerPoint show didn't change the fundamental position of the U.N. Security Council or the opinion of many Americans.

    From Wikipedia (and yes there are foreign press sites to back this up):
    "While Colin Powell's statement to the UN may have been accepted as 'proof' by many in the U.S., this was not the case in Europe, where there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

    Powell has since expressed shame over the incident.

    --
    Ask me about my sig!
  60. in related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both North Korea and Iran announced construction of 250 feet deep underground bunkers, they should be available sometime in 2010

  61. Re: Neo-Con Creative History by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

    What relevance does "skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda" have to the belief by most people pre-2003 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  62. Guam - The Forgotten Factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I see discussion like this pop up, it seems as though it generates the same old replies. e.g. "Well, yeah, NK can do damage to US allies and perhaps even overrun the DMZ with a quick offensive, but it's not like they could really do any damage to the US itself." Wrong.

    I know when most people (US citizens included) think of the US, they don't consider its protectorates, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. The US territory of Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands are both within range of North Korea's missiles. Together they have a population of a quarter million US citizens. Even looking at Guam alone, it has a population of about 150 thousand US citizens, as well as a major Air Force base, and a major naval base (which services one carrier battle group and houses a sub base). In another few years, seventeen thousand Marines will be restationed from Okinawa to Guam and nuclear weapons will be added to the island's arsenal again. Sure, nuking Guam is hardly a knockout blow for the US, but it would be a mistake to pretend that the damage to the nation wouldn't be tremendous.

  63. just one half of mv2 by Tsalg · · Score: 2, Funny

    30,000 lbs? Does it have to explode at all when dropped from a plane?

    1. Re:just one half of mv2 by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      30,000 lbs? Does it have to explode at all when dropped from a plane?

      No, but it helps.

  64. What we could do by lunch by Quila · · Score: 1

    90% of their airfields, grid electricity, command and control, fixed missile launchers and rail lines would be down.

    After that it gets ugly, and as long-term as Kim is stubborn.

    I just hope our first target is that affront to architecture, the Ryugyong Hotel.

  65. SOME PEOPLE ARGUED by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before the invasion, no one argued that he didn't have any WMD

    WRONG.

  66. Re:Velocity by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    TFA says the bomb hits at twice the speed of sound. I always thought terminal velocity was about 125 mph though I did some reading and it turns out that terminal velocity depends on density. Well duh, I mean a packing peanut isn't very dense and falls much slower than a pencil, but somehow I thought all these years without thinking about it that 'terminal velocity' for reasonably dense things was a constant. I just never thought about it, but now I feel quite stupid. Anyways, the point I was getting to was that maybe they should drop slugs of metal from space with a heat sheild or something to prevent them from burning up in the atmosphere. That would be kewl, huuhuhuh

    --
    ...
  67. Cheaper Option by aoheno · · Score: 1

    Don't need a huge bomb, Hit the ventilation and entrance shafts, as well as communication links with existing 500 pounders vs. 5,000+ pounders.

    Otherwise useful for mining coal.

    --
    Her lips were softer than a duck's bill, but her quacks ...
  68. Call of Duty? by ryanvm · · Score: 1

    The real question is: Can I get this as a killstreak in Call of Duty 6?

    1. Re:Call of Duty? by Firemouth · · Score: 1

      Only if they put a desk on the map to hide under when it goes off. That way you don't die when you drop it!

  69. Whither the B-1? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

    ...it is designed to be carried aboard B-2 and B-52 bombers...

    Do we use the B-1 for anything?

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    1. Re:Whither the B-1? by icegreentea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They used them for psyops in Afghanistan. Had some Taliban holed up in a valley, some spec ops team called for fire support. So the B-1s fly through the valley supersonic while dropping bombs... and hitting everything with its sonic boom. The spec ops dudes said 'I knew that was coming, and I still shit my pants' or something to that affect.

      Anyhow, the B1's bombbays are probably too small in one dimension to fit the MOP.

    2. Re:Whither the B-1? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Those B1s with their Mach 0.92 top speed at low altitude musta broken so many sound barriers bombing valleys in Afghanistan...
      There is currently a proposed supersonic-at-most-altitudes model of the B1.
      It doesn't exist yet.

      I hope you didn't buy the guy that told you that story a drink. Either way you got pwned!

    3. Re:Whither the B-1? by ksheff · · Score: 1

      I know that a bulkhead can be removed between the 1st two bays to make a longer internal bay which may be able to carry the MOP, but according to this, it appears that it is not allowed under the START I treaty since it would also make the aircraft capable of carrying nuclear armed cruise missiles.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  70. Now they will put them 600 feet underground by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

    Now that the word is out of the capabilities everyone will just build 600 feet underground. Back to the drawing board bomb makers!

  71. Wondering about the Physics by eric02138 · · Score: 1

    The original post states that the bomb would hit the ground "well beyond twice the speed of sound". I would have thought that even a sleek, heavy object would reach terminal velocity due to air resistance before reaching such speeds. Assuming that it were dropped from 30,000 feet, how fast would it be moving when it hit the ground? (Assuming that it was about 3 ft in diameter and 20 ft long from the information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_Ordnance_Penetrator) Thanks!

  72. Actual tactical value vs. other methods? by swb · · Score: 1

    Is a bomb like this actually more effective than precision targeting an underground bunker's entrances/exits, exposed infrastructure intakes, and carpet bombing the surrounding area, including aerial delivery of mines (to inhibit continued egress/ingress, repair, rescue, etc)?

    I also wonder if you couldn't deliver some kind of acid or other caustic solution that would eat into a bunker, but I suppose that might not be practical.

  73. Sucker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA taxes below their average. In fact the current rate today is well below the US average; therefore being closer to your "uncivilized" for much of the countries existence.

    Sweden has many government services. Sweden doesn't waste anywhere near as much money on military to prop up a industrial complex...so that tax can go into services. Sweden has a smaller economy which pretty much means higher taxes to make up the difference. It also depends upon the tax structure, since it can differ greatly. In the USA somebody who is rich and doesn't do any paperwork easily goes over 50% when its all added up (if they play all the loopholes for the rich they can do about 6% which just screws the rest of us.)

    USA has tons of taxes to trick people. Many end up in the prices of goods and services. Then you have the wasteful private services that breed corruption and waste (ISPs, power, private water, lack of public transit, healthcare.) The cost of healthcare can go from a few % of your income (if you buy insurance) to everything you own and more! Many college grads have a house worth of debt now; where in other nations college is subsidized. Then you have the sue-crazy system which stems from having connected lawyers running government which makes everything you do cost more especially insurance rates; and insurance loves congress too... as one can see during the health insurance battle going on today.

    Don't forget PROPERTY Tax. Part of the intention was to stop land barons and repeating most of history; the other was a practical way to pay for local services. Its not equitable and is used to discriminate and attack family farmers. My property taxes are HIGH and the work over the last 20 years put into my house by MYSELF is costing me a ton of money everytime I have to let the city inspect and rate my house every 5 years. Oh, they NEVER lower the value; I buried the pool I DUG with a shovel and I'm STILL paying for it.

    Don't forget probate and inheritance tax. They are quite high; especially all the taxes for inheritance; have a parent die without a will and you'll figure out how uncivilized the USA is. I should note the inheritance tax (aka death tax) is a GOOD THING which is the civilized thing to do; it never impacted family farms or people without a few million dollars-- its purpose was to prevent a ruling elite. (See South America for recent history of problems of not having inheritance tax or non-homestead property taxes.)

    In the USA a long running propaganda campaign has been running to undermine the public sector by private interests which everybody grew up with being exposed to. Its no wonder Americans have trouble thinking rationally on such topics. Wake up!

    1. Re:Sucker by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point. I wasn't comparing the systems in USA and Sweden and saying the USA is better (except to the extent that the overall taxes are lower) - I think they are both bad and unfair. Still let me answer some of the points:

      Sweden has many government services.

      Well, it better. If I put 60% of my money into something I would expect to get at least something back. However, are those services worth it to you? Would you buy those same things if you had the money you earned and you had a choice of what to buy with it instead of that choice being made by the government? Maybe in Sweden everybody agrees on what their money should be spent on and don't want any personal choice in the matter (except voting for those who spend it for them), but I very much doubt it.

      In the USA somebody who is rich and doesn't do any paperwork easily goes over 50% when its all added up

      It is unlikely that anybody in the US is paying over 50% and only the people in states with high taxes such as California are getting close to that. In my state, which has no state tax, even the wealthiest will pay at most 30% in federal income tax and social security, and the rest (sales, property, inheritance taxes etc) obviously depend on the individual circumstances .

      My property taxes are HIGH and the work over the last 20 years put into my house by MYSELF is costing me a ton of money everytime I have to let the city inspect and rate my house every 5 years. Oh, they NEVER lower the value; I buried the pool I DUG with a shovel and I'm STILL paying for it.

      Ok, and I agree that this is a horrible situation and it should end. What's your point? You seem to argue in favor of taxes one moment and then against them the next.

      Many college grads have a house worth of debt now; where in other nations college is subsidized.

      Yes but you have to look at the both sides of the equation. Aren't people who don't go to college, who don't send their children to college or perhaps don't have any children being victimized by being forced to pay for other people's education? Why shouldn't those who use a service pay for it, as opposed to everybody.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
  74. Funny thing with complaints about capitalism by Quila · · Score: 1

    Without capitalism you have the poor and the rich party elite. The rich directly enact the laws.

    Pick any developed nation with a relative lack of capitalism, China, Cuba, North Korea, USSR, etc., and tell me how they are/were doing.

    All of them to some extent have capitalism flowing underneath the official communist economy. Some have only a little like North Korea and they are hurting. China is doing well because of a large capitalistic economy under the communist veneer.

    Notice also you don't see protests for rights in NK, but you do in China. Capitalism goes hand in hand with freedom because capitalism is freedom.

    Unfortunately people can and do abuse their freedoms, but they can be dealt with individually.

  75. In Korea... by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

    In Korea, only old people use conventional weapons.

    --
    No sig today.
    1. Re:In Korea... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Korea, conventional people use old weapons.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  76. According to wikipedia... by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

    Penetration: 130 ft (40 m) of moderately hard rock

    They can only get it within 40m of the stage? And only for moderately hard rock? If they just had some Floyd fans deliver the payload they could save themselves a lot of trouble.

  77. Re:Imagine... (it a little heavier) by d.valued · · Score: 1

    Now, if it had a couple thousand more pounds, we'd have a bona fide 16 ton weight.

    Too bad he Pythons never thought of it exploding, though...

    --
    I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
    Real life is underrated.
  78. Re:Return == Stabilized $$ by quetzalblue · · Score: 1

    >Any such implosion in the value of the dollar would seriously screw with the US economy.

    There. Fixed that for ya .. :-)

    OK, ok .. so the ripples would spread to the rest of the world if the US economy cratered. But .. and this is a good but, why is it that China, while holding such large US denominated debt is also initiating foreign exchanges in yuans ? you dont actually think they're stoopid enough to devalue their US reserves do you ? .. or will they be dumping them in an orderly fashion since US currency is devaluing as we speak ? By the way, who do you think it would benefit to devalue such a large amount of IOUs ?

  79. Re:Velocity by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

    Orbit to ground bombing (AKA "Rods from God") has been explored by the science fiction writer Jerry Pournelle. Project Thor is just a concept for now but it seems like it would work at least in theory. Here are a couple pictures, pic 1, pic 2, and a second article The Rods from God .

  80. You forgot to adjust to metric years NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeated for the filter:

    You forgot to adjust to metric years

  81. "Massive Penetrator" is so much more manly than by hey! · · Score: 1

    "Daisy Cutter".

    The imagery is rather bow-wow-chicka-bow: our device will penetrate deep down to the secret chamber where the goods are kept.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  82. Re: Neo-Con Creative History by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > What relevance does "skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda" have to the belief by most people pre-2003 that Saddam Hussein had WMDs?

    Al-Qaeda + WMDs = easy fear-mongering through association. Duh.

  83. It's the oil stupid. by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    We wanted to have a fairly large ground force in the oil fields in case any trouble breaks out. I might have been OK with that, but being lied to about WMD's, made me think it was a bad plan. No one ever came out to the good using this strategy. If the goal was to get rid of WMD's, we'll then we have succeeded. I wonder what the real goals are? Before you make war on someone, there has to be a goal. In WWII the goal was simple, unconditional surrender. That is why we succeeded. There may yet be something like that behind the scenes, I don't know? Did Bush study game theory or read The Art of War? If he didn't then he failed to listen to his generals. I really think that happened, otherwise why would Colin Powell and some of his other best cabinet members have quit?

    1. Re:It's the oil stupid. by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Go back and read Bush's speech about why we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. WMDs were only one of many reasons given. Second go back and read the reasons given by the French and Russians to oppose intervention in Iraq, they don't challenge the the idea that Iraq had WMDs.
      Colin Powell is this guy that people keep holding up as some great statesman. Were you aware that he was apparently involved in attempts to cover up the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War? Everything I have ever seen about Colin Powell suggests that he was a political opportunist, who took the job of Secretary of State because it made him look good and resigned when he did for the same reason. I have seen no evidence that he ever took a principled stand on anything.
      Please note, I do not know that he was a political opportunist, merely that what I have seen of his behavior suggests that.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:It's the oil stupid. by Capsaicin · · Score: 1

      Go back and read Bush's speech about why we needed to remove Saddam Hussein from power. WMDs were only one of many reasons given.

      It was clear at the time that Bush had a unshakeable emotional attachment to the idea of invading Iraq. He was going to invade no matter what, even as Hussein was making concessions. So naturally there were many "reasons" given, it's just that the WMD idea is that one that found most traction domestically, so that's the one they ran with.

      Why he actually invaded Iraq is something probably only his therapist (were he wise enough to have had one) would know. Maybe it had something to do with trying to succeed where Daddy "failed." Of course Daddy didn't fail, but let's just forget about the Bush who did a fairly good job as President.

      --
      Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
    3. Re:It's the oil stupid. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Why he actually invaded Iraq is something probably only his therapist (were he wise enough to have had one) would know.

      Therapists may have a confidentiality agreement, but there are limits. My therapist told me about having to alert the authorities when a patient mentioned fighting in the car with the spouse, being distracted from the road, with their young kid in the car.

      I'm not sure Bush wants to share a whole lot of his inner thoughts with someone who can have him jailed for them...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:It's the oil stupid. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      My therapist told me about having to alert the authorities when a patient mentioned fighting in the car with the spouse, being distracted from the road, with their young kid in the car.

      I'd be skeptical of visiting the therapist after learning that little nugget. Their ethical and legal obligation is to break confidentially if you tell them that you about to harm someone. They don't have the same obligation if you mention harming someone in the past. At that point there is nothing to be gained by breaking confidentiality (the person has already been harmed) -- your therapist doesn't exist to help some district attorney build a case against you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:It's the oil stupid. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      What you say makes sense. However, the therapist was stating that this was an ongoing behavior, and thus the child's life was being placed in danger -- in the future, as well as in the past.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  84. In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military analysts have deemed my wang "Massive", "Sturdy", and "Fearsome".
    Ladies, I'm talkin' to you.

    - The USA

  85. US V. N Korea by sjbe · · Score: 1

    They have a 1,200,000 man standing army.

    Your point that N Korea has a large army is an important one but numbers aren't everything. The Iraqi army in the first gulf war had about 550,000 soldiers, decent equipment, and time to dig in and still got thoroughly stomped. Granted it's not the same situation but the US military lately has been scary effective in conventional conflicts. It's the asymmetric conflicts that cause problems for our conventional military.

    but it would eventually come down to men with rifles and when that happens there's no way to avoid a large number of American casualties.

    I have no real expertise on the Korean situation but given the results of recent conventional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would put my money on the US military in a romp unless the Chinese got involved on the opposing side. I think the N Koreans could do a lot of damage to the South until the US mobilized but without support from the Chinese the N Koreans would be in for a serious ass whipping. The US already has significant military assets in place in Korea though perhaps only enough for a delaying action. The biggest obstacle is that the US military would have to disengage in Iraq and/or Afghanistan to mount a serious campaign.

     

    Unless you think we have some sort of technology that magically negates Mr. Kalashnikov's inventions.

    It's called an armored personnel carrier. Seriously, the only big threat the North Koreans themselves pose to the US is if (big if) they can make effective tactical use of a nuclear weapon, either against a city or massed armed forces. Yes, there would be troop losses but I strongly suspect the numbers would be highly lopsided after an initial N Korean assault.

  86. Could be... er, HAS BEEN worse. by revxul · · Score: 1

    I suppose this is a lesser evil next to the, "Nuke them before they nuke us," mentality.

    --
    Truth, Just Us, And Hatred For All Mankind!
  87. Rename the B2 "The Maid"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "General, this is the President. Send in 'The Maid'..."

  88. Re: Neo-Con Creative History by jonadab · · Score: 1

    > there was widespread skepticism of any links between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

    That's a separate issue.

    What the other poster said is essentially true: before and during the initial stages of the US invasion, Saddam's regime did their level best to convince the world (and their own citizens) that they were a force to be reckoned with, and that included a concerted attempt to convince the world that they did have weapons of mass destruction.

    One could argue that we should have known better, on the grounds that exaggerating your own military capability is a standard modus operandi in the Arab world. (For example, before the six-day war, Nasser had the world convinced that Egypt was the dominant military power in the middle east. Once the actual military action got underway, however, it rapidly became obvious that in fact the dominant military power in the region is Israel.) Based on this line of reasoning, you could say that we should have known Saddam was inflating his capabilities. Certainly we figured it out quickly enough once the war broke out.

    But when the other poster says that Saddam "was doing his best to convince the world that he did have WMDs", he's not making this up, and anyone who was paying a modicum of attention at the time should remember it.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  89. Who our allies are. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    How about the fact that we have a security alliance [wikipedia.org] with Japan and that the mission of defending South Korea has a UN mandate [wikipedia.org]?

    Read the text of the 1960 security treaty with Japan. Neither party is actually required to go to war to defend the other. It's a feel good treaty that gives the USA basing rights.

    http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/1.html

    South Korea's defense being a UN Mandate, perhaps the UN could take up the matter in a security council meeting. Perhaps a stern letter to North Korea would work.

    Do you also think that we have no obligation to defend Australia, New Zealand or our NATO allies?

    Australia fought with the USA in World War II and most of its other wars in the Pacific. You can think of Australia as a key strategic ally in the Pacific, that anchors that ocean in the same way the UK is a key strategic ally in the Atlantic. The USA, UK and Australia have had a REAL military alliance and partnership and so of course the USA should defend Australia.

    NATO expansion was a mistake.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Who our allies are. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Read the text of the 1960 security treaty with Japan. Neither party is actually required to go to war to defend the other. It's a feel good treaty that gives the USA basing rights.

      South Korea's defense being a UN Mandate, perhaps the UN could take up the matter in a security council meeting. Perhaps a stern letter to North Korea would work.

      Eh, there are other considerations as well. If the United States allowed South Korea and/or Japan to get pummeled by an outside party and didn't intervene then why would any of our remaining allies believe that we would protect them? We owe our position in the world to our various allies -- without them and the basing rights that come with them the United States is a regional power without the ability to project power outside of the Western hemisphere and Pacific (our various island holdings give us basing rights there regardless of any allies)

      NATO expansion was a mistake.

      No argument here. But for better or worse we are obligated to defend those countries now. If we aren't willing to do so then perhaps we should withdraw from the alliance now and not bother to maintain the illusion. There are times when I'd be all for withdrawal -- NATO invoked Article 5 after 9/11 but hasn't done much of anything to help us in Afghanistan. The bulk of the burden there is being carried by us, the Canadians, the British and the Dutch. Most of the remaining NATO members have attached various strings to their forces and refuse to allow them to be employed as needed. Hardly seems like an alliance if it's a one-way street, does it?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Who our allies are. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      ...hat come with them the United States is a regional power without the ability to project power outside of the Western hemisphere and Pacific (our various island holdings give us basing rights there regardless of any allies)

      I don't care if the USA is anything more than a regional power. I'd rather have the paycheck than the empire. Empires cost more than they are worth, especially these days. Look at all the trade concessions the USA has to give up to project power... its a bad deal, all around.

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Who our allies are. by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      *shrug*, history suggests that if the US withdraws then the rest of the free world will get in over it's head and come crawling to us needing a rescue sooner or later. It's cheaper to police the world than it is to fight World War III.

      I'd like to see us ditch the empire too but I don't think it's feasible until another democracy comes along that has the resources and political will to take our place -- much as we did with the UK during and after WW2. India is a possibility in a few generations but they aren't quite ready yet.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.