The reason the right is gaining power is due to two things, IMHO: economic trouble due to overspending (as in, going too far down the socialist path with social programmes - having a little is great but too much is not affordable); the second thing is the perceived inaction on immigration and particularly the non-integration of Islamists into mainstream European society. This inaction (or even creation of laws that pander to Islamist demands) by the political elites is leading to an 'immune response' reaction by disaffected non-immigrant populations. The solution to defuse the right is for the EU to show actual leadership and state that Enlightenment liberties are not negotiable and the rights of Europeans will be protected regardless of 'cultural' complaints by immigrants. Integrate or leave is the simple message (which Australian Prime Minister Gillard was strong enough to state a few months back). Its all an ideological war of perception. The pitifully weak EU leadership are failing to address legitimate concerns of native Europeans, and the only people who are happen to be nasty fringe rightists. This needs to change.
The right is so thoroughly discredited by the real Nazis they will never be more than a nuisance. They will never be mainstream. However the Left is now mainstream and promote collective policies that are against individual liberties. As I said, the left is all for every diversity except for diversity in opinion (which is the one that really matters). In this way the Left are far more of a threat to liberty than the far Right. Also, the Left makes common cause with Islamists. This is why it is becoming increasingly un-orthodox to publicly oppose the evil totalitarian political ideology called Islam. When was the last time you saw a movie where the villians were jihadis? you don't, because the leftist movie industry, media and politicans white-wash what is reallty going on. If you like facts check out any of the YouTube videos by Stephen Coughlin (a fact-based former Pentagon analyst, before the leftist Obama Administration purged all fact-based official documentation on the jihadi threat and slow cultual Islamicization of the West). Or check out the shocking statistics of attacks at: http://www.religionofpeace.com/
Finally, ask yourself why your politicians and media are not telling you these *facts*? then ask yourself whether the view of the geopolitical situation as presented to you by the mainstream (leftist) narrative is accurate towards the facts I've given (and there are so much more I could give)? I hope I've picqued your interest and you start to discover what is really going on (and how the leadership in the West, including the EU, are hiding a great deal of information from you - which could significantly affect the liberties and freedoms we citizens cherish).
You are a smart cookie. You were culturally close bro. I'm a New Zealander and a physicist (now in IT) - "first-order approximation" is a term we commonly used. I'm surprised Slashdotters don't know it.
I hate racism nearly as much as I despise the evil totalitarian political ideology called Islam. The fact that standing up for liberty by pointing out the threat of Islam gets you instantly branded as a Klansman (racist and violent) shows how badly the West is losing the ideological war against the creeping tyrrany of Islamism: which, if you look at the evidence, is slowly inhibiting our liberties, eg. look at the anti-free-speech UN HRC resolution 16/18 that criminalises free speech, push by none other than recent Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton against the First Ammendment of the US Constitution. The EU is slowly also becoming Sharia compliant, by adopting policies that are "politically correct" (not that 'pc' is the enemy of Free Speech) in order to avert violence from the growing numbers of Muslims in Europe. It is clear the EU governance does not care about the liberties of the citizenry otherwise they would never float laws preventing porn and dictating what its citizens may or may not think. Yes, this position seems whacky when you first encounter it, but the evidence is fairly clear that the EU is promoting (perhaps unwittingly) the goals of Islamists while progressively restricting the 'traditional' liberties of non-immigrant EU citizens. Once you put the pieces of the puzzle together you see how the leftist-Islamist agenda have the same goal: destruction of individual liberty and the supremacy of the collective. This is dangerous for those that rather like our liberties.
Standing up for political and individual freedom now gets one compared to a racist. Islam is against every freedom held dear by the West but to oppose it gets you condemned as equivalent to a racist. This is how far the left has warped discourse, that to hold a view opposing its narrative gets you instantly branded as a rascist. This is interesting because Islam is an evil totalitarian *political* ideology and not a race. That fact you don't understand this shows how far from the truth you thinking is. Here's a video to get you started thinking the correct way about what is *really going on in the World* (which the leftist EU and US leadership and compliant media downplay): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U I also highly recommend any of the YouTube videos by Stephen Coughlin (an analyst who used to brief the Pentagon, before the lefties in the Obama Administration shut down fact-based analysis of the Islamist threat). The West is losing the war on terrorism because the leftists (who are in alliance with the Islamists) are framing the debate so intelligent people don't ask the correct questions.
Calling someone a racist just because you don't understand their point of view is an 'easy out'. It is better to ask questions, you might learn something and get closer to the truth. I'm a physicist 'by trade', so "first-order approximation" means "in the right direction, but clearly could certainly use improvement for specific cases". So please stop using the leftist tactic of throwing racist slurs about for something you think you disagree with (because you don't actually understand what is being debated).
So, what justification do you have for the EU dictating what the citizens of the member states can think or not think. Where is the justification and consent of the populace in granting the EU that? how come the EU thinks it can do it.
What is certain is that you almost certainly don't understand what is going on globally. You may be in the mainstream with orthodox views but are still wrong. Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
The Obama Administration is in denial and working against freedom due to their leftist views. The european elite are even more clueless. And it sounds like you have zero idea of what is going on as well. My position is not because I don't understand, it is because I understand far far more than those that listen only to the mainstream media (who are repeating a narrative that is flatly false). All decent analysts have the same conclusion, which goes against the narrative of the mainstream media. So don't be so smug, you know far less about what is really going on than you think. Please do the research - I beg you. We are running out of time.
That's what the stats say. However the EU is becoming increasingly "Sharia compliant" in the name of "tolerance" and "political correctness" - which are antithetical to Free Speech. Furthermore, the fact that the EU believes it can regulate the thought of its citizens shows how it is grabbing rights and powers it does not have. The eurosceptics were correct when they foresaw that the EU would turn into a monster that cares not a whit about its citizens, and cares more about the agendas of the bureaucrats running it. The EU has *no right* to dictate what Europeans may or may not think.
Wrong. What is Orwellian is the belief of the EU that it has the right to regulate the thoughts of its citizens, for any purpose. This is utterly wrong on a fundamental level, and should be opposed. I hope you see that now that it has been pointed out.
Well said. Even more insidious, the EU leadership believe they can regulate what is acceptable for citizens to *think*. There is no point having "Free Speech" if you can't actually exercise it. The EU administrators should be taken to task for this. They have *no right* to dictate what citizens may think. So EU citizens don't passively take this power grab lying down! complain ffs!
What is wrong with some stereotypes? each individual may be different but in aggregate they can be adequately described by stereotypes (as a first-order approximation). It is indeed Orwellian that the EU believe they have the right to create *thought crimes* instead of promoting free thinking. In fact this is the biggest and most retarded mistake of the political Left. They are for diversity and every perversity - except for the diversity that actually matters, *diversity of thought*. It is anathema to the political Left to allow views that are against their orthodoxy and they will suppress other views ruthlessly (which is what we see here). Orwellian is a great word to describe the belief of the EU governors that they have the right to regulate the thought of EU citizens. So don't scoff so lightly at this.
It's not naziism, it's "Sharia compliance". The ban on pr0n was defeated, for now. As the weak Europeans edge toward Eurabia expect more and more liberties to be challenged, successfully at first, and then eventually legislated away. The idiots running the EU do it in the spirit of "niceness" and "political correctness". Political Correctness is the *mortal enemy* of Free Speech. Every time a Slashdotter stands up for niceness and political correctness over Free Speech they are aiding an abetting those who seek to take liberties away (not just the Islamists, but the political Left as well).
Sorry but the US gov has a poor record on the truth.
That true. But your position seems to be to do nothing and let the enemies of liberty do as they will? it's hard to know whether that position is greater in terms of cowardice or stupidity. The enemies of freedom are getting increasingly active, if you care to look (most funded by Saudi or Iranian petrodollars). Doing nothing will not make the world a better place - despite the lies you are being told. The US is morally right to use force of arms to destroy tyrants (Saddam) and jihadis (Taliban and Al Qaeda). You might like to lie down and become a dhimmi, but the rest of us don't.
The biggest threat to the US is actually if the US economy tanks due to tax rises hitting the middle class and taking a huge dent out of consumer spending. The problem is that some people seem to think this would be a good idea to scare the country into voting republican. They think things like this as the very rich do not suffer as much in recessions as the middle class and the poor do.
Please note I'm not from the US. While taxing the "middle class" for little appreciable gain indeed problematic the real problem is as I stated - approximately 66 trillion in unfunded liabilities if the entitlements programmes are kept as they are. I agree with you that the Republicans are pretty much indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of leadership failure. The Libertarians seem to make more sense, but there is a danger that they go past small government and lower taxes into total lassez faire deregulation (which is bad for common people and smaller businesses). The solutions are not easy but it is clear that the Big Government (and associated huge and growing spending) of the Democrats is the worst position of the lot.
In four years time he will be out of office and the US will be no different.
In four years he will be out of office but the US will be different. Already the Obama Administration has changed the World greatly - for the worse. Most Americans aren't really aware of the complete disaster of Benghazi and what its apparent causes were - and the compliant media doesn't hold Hiliary's feet to the fire for her utter incompetence (and that of the State Department). It also doesn't call Hilliary up of her total selling out of the Constitutional First Amendment by co-sponsoring UN HRC 16/18. It is clear for the current Administration that the US Constitution is a nuisance that should be neutered through new laws (Obama destroyed the Fifth Amendment with the NDAA - which his Administration forced the drafters to remove protections for US citizens [according to Senator Levine], and then he lied about "his reservations"; as I mentioned they neutered the First Amendment; and now they are after the Second). This may be news to you, as I said the media is complicit in covering up the sins of this Administration because they believe in its agenda (a Republican president doing the same stuff would have been impeached already). Am I a Republican? no, but I believe that they are far more sensible on economics and foreign policy than the Democrats. The damage being done by the Obama Administration (*accelerating* overspending, withdrawal from leading global alliances, and refusal to take a moral stance and promote Enlightenment Freedoms around the World [Obama's shameful actions in 2009 at the time of the Green Revolution and his ouster of Mubarak to promote the anti-liberty Muslim Brotherhood will mark him in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter - even if his supporters are so smitten they can't see it yet; you have to judge the action by the consequences, not by the ideals that made you do it]).
China will take at least 10 years, maybe longer to build up a large enough military to be a serious challenge to the US.
But that challenge will happen. The US is now cutting back existing units (costly, but a tiny fraction of those unfunded entitlement liabilities I mentioned) and will take a decade to rebuild them even if it started now (which it won't). Meanwhile, China appears to be working on building several more carriers based on an indigenous design (using the bought carrier to shake out bug in carrier operation). While China may always have fewer carriers, it almost certainly will have *local* numerical parity (or even superiority) in any conflict. That will make any future war with China uncertain, and very bloody even if the US came out on top [note: such a war will be almost entirely naval and air, ground forces don't factor much in the likely Pacific combat scenarios]. So, the fact that Obam
The only counter to nuclear weapons is the threat of other nuclear weapons. Carriers are insignificant compared to the capability of even a few ballistic missiles. Carriers are handy because they can be used at lower levels of conflict, so they have their uses. However, the top of the defence food chain are nuclear weapons (with several different types of delivery options). There is no substitute for nuclear weapons for global powers. Unilaterally pursuing nuclear disarmament is utter insanity - there are countries in the World who would nuke a disarmed US without blinking. For example, Iran and North Korea say they would on nearly a daily basis - which doesn't make their threats hollow as some people believe - but show that the enemies of the US have the will but are in fact deterred for now by the large US nuclear arsenal.
Most people in the US don't know that the Iranians have installed around sixteen Shahab 3 missiles in a mountain redoubt in Venezuela:
http://www.topix.com/forum/ve/caracas/TFOGPR88FQV6RHJGC
This missile can't quite reach the US but with extended ranges of successors (from shared missile tehcnology between Iran and North Korea) and the Iranian nuclear weapons program the citizenry of the US ought to be very very concerned - and certainly not allowing Obama to progressively disarm the ultimate deterrent that the US has (that is, its nuclear triad). I'm glad I don't live in the US - its enemies are working on its destruction while its leaders are busy squabbling over how to bribe voters by spending money it doesn't have (note that the massive spending is nearly all on social programmes; despite what you are told, defence is a pittance in comparison).
The big problem is not so much the manufacturing to produce effective warheads but the problem that many of the guys with experience to build effective warheads are retired or dead.
The point of most nukes is to destroy other nukes in their silos. That's what nuclear war was all about - who has the capability to strike first and who can take a strike and have enough warheads left to have a credible retaliatory strike. This is called the "counterforce" mission and is very important in nuclear strategy. The strategy of hitting cities is very secondary and is called "countervalue". Hitting population centres is not primary goal of nuclear war - usually you go for their nukes, their military installations, their oil production and refining and their manufacturing. Where this is close to cities then the cities get roasted. It turns out to do these things it actually takes quite a few nukes, especially if your opponent has anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities as the US and Russia do (and to a limited extent, Israel), and presumably China is also working on this.
The principal effect of 50 nuclear warheads aimed at remote silos (notice how in the US, Russia and China the silos are in the middle-of-nowhere?) is probably insignificant on a national scale and certainly on a global scale with regards to blast and fallout. They can have an effect on the climate but this is peanuts compared to something like Krakatoa and probably even smaller events like the Iceland volcanic eruptions or Mount St Helens.
One doesn't have to agree, or disagree, with nuclear war to understand that it is not entirely madness to wage it. The thousands of nukes weren't built for no reason - a careful calculus was made to ensure first strike survivability. As each side in the Cold War did new calculations the numbers climbed - but the numbers weren't arbitrary - they were the result of careful study.
Oh, and here's a total babe, Rebeccah Heinreichs, talking about Obama's unilateral cuts to the US nuclear triad - who *analysis* believes that around 2700 warheads are needed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JY0r2rxZPk
Note that Obama's cuts are not really about saving money money. After all, he'd save vastly more by limiting entitlements and social programmes (the unfunded liabilities being promised completely dwarf even the current US deficit). The cuts also are not because the nukes aren't needed, they are needed for decades to come and for unseen threats in the next 50 years. The cuts are all purely ideologically based on Obama's (flawed) world view. Sadly, his supporters don't want to face the truth about his intentions to remake America by first breaking it by overspending and weakening its traditional strengths. Obama wants to unilaterally disarm and surrender the US to the world. He's already abandoned many allies. The world is about to get very chaotic as a result of a lack of strong leadership from secular democracies lead by the US.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and unlimited budgets that come with fear of death. The united states developed the atomic bomb during wartime in 4 years. A real war between NATO vs Russia or China would most definitely require a ground invasion. The buildup to that invasion would take years during which current assets would be deployed to secure strategic advantage rather than on a head on fight. The use of nuclear weapons would most likely only prolong the war as the devastation will significantly diminish the strength of both camps
Sorry dude, you can't be a student of history. Despite the Russian's public statements about tactical nuclear weapons in the Cold War their war plans involved using them in massive numbers at the outset (that's the Russian mentality, use your best weapons first, not last like silly Westerners). Also, the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) were poised to invade on a hair trigger alert. War could have started with zero warning. Today war between China and the US could start in days, because in the Pacific ground forces are nearly irrelevant - it is also sea nad air forces, which can go into action very very quickly.
F/A-18 is not a fine dog fighter. It's strength is in the low-speed scissors, but has to survive long enough to get to that point. That's not to say the F/A-18 sux, far from it. But there are much better dogfighting aircraft out there: F-16, MiG-29, Su-27 - because these were built for close-in knifefights. The Hornet excels at global multi-role and is pretty good at long-ranged BVR fights. It's ok in the dogfight but not great.
True. Look at how the French were able to decisively win in Mali because of their highly capable *Rafale* and their Special Forces. Using them is much much cheaper then many divisions on the ground. Only a reinforced regiment was needed.
Yes, but the SuperHornet does not have the capabilities of the F-35. We could extend your logic to an extreme case and say that your could produce Spitfires these days with lower mass and smaller budget than years ago, but would you want to be in a Spitfire against an F-35 (or Su-30, or PAK FA, or F-20) ? Similarly, the F-35 is more expensive than the SuperHornet because it is a next gen fighter that is superior to the Super Hornet. The F-35 is a slug with a full fuel load but by the time it gets to the combat zone/FEBA it has burnt off most of that fuel and its performance becomes pretty good. It is also more stealthy and has better electronics (offensive and defensive) and much better situational awareness for the pilot with better displays and better datalinking. The SuperHornet is simply not as capable as the F-35. The people against the F-35 are those against all military equipment (and Boeing in this specific case, since they are trying to use teething problems to convince politicians to take their product that cannot compete on capability).
Look at the intakes on the SuperHornet, and other parts of the redesign. Partial stealth is part of all new designs. It is not comprehensive stealth features but it is "significant" in reducing the radar cross section is a tactically significant way.
Then the tech and designs exists in the case you need to spin up production. Otherwise, you're just gambling.
Utterly false. The time to produce and test modern technology is long (I don't mean the R&D, I mean build each unit and test it). An even longer time is required to get crews up to speed (5 to 10 years). In modern full-scale war (which as far as I know, the US still intends to win when it has one) you pretty much are limited to the inventory on hand at the outbreak - there is simply not enough time to manufacture equipment and train the numbers of crews in the time scale of the conflict. Modern conventional war is so destructive, intensely paced and voracious of stores that it cannot be expected to last more than a few months at the most. Yes, they said this about World War I (aka "The Great War") but they didn't have precision guided munitions nor tactical nukes.
To summarize. Your post is wrong. When tensions rise over national core interests you usually have a matter of months to prepare before conflict starts and a matter of months to conclude the strategic situation in your favor. To win a war you have to set the conditions up well before the conflict starts. This is what the US has done in the past. China is smart enough that it is doing it now. Set the conditions up so that fighting is not even necessary, they are already working their way to regional air and sea dominance (which is what matters in their region) before any fighting takes place.
Not in combat it's not. Same with the F-22. Sexy technology that wasn't used in the last 12 years of tactical bombing of a country with no fighters or anti-air infrastructure. Even the B-2 saw action.
The reason the USAF hasn't been challenged for decades is because it is so powerful no-one dares to fight it. The US economy can afford its military (which is mostly a jobs program with teeth) because the US economy is huge [it is borrowing to fund voter-bribe entitlement programmes that is destroying the US; as this completely dwarfs Department of Defence spending]. If the USAF looks like it will become vulnerable then expect the uppity folks around the World to start wars that the US will have little choice to avoid - this will be much more expensive that maintaining the USAF air dominance fleet. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" n' all that. It is much much cheaper to maintain Pax Americana through a strong military then to be "penny wise and pound foolish" and slip back into an even more expensive multi-polar world. Think strategically.
Iran is not working on building nuclear weapons. It is working on building the *capability* to build the weapons. Going from the capability to actual weapons would be very quick. At the moment conventional Iran cannot be contained (eg. look at its funding and support of brutal Hamas and Hezbollah; manufacturing and sending ammunition to extends the Arab vs African massacres in Sudan (where it created unmarked ammo so it couldn't be traced - it took quite a while to find the source was Iran). Then there are the Sahab missiles Iran has installed in venezuela, which will eventually be able to attack the US (when they are upgraded, and then get nuke warheads). Then we have the other attacks around the world it has conducted by Iran: Argentina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lebanon, Syria, India, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught, so there is no question who it was).
Note also that the Iranian programme is spread over three dozen dispersed sites we know about. This is completely unnecessary for civilian research. You have to be willfully blind to think they aren't working on acquiring the *capability* of a bomb (which is pretty much the same as a bomb for those guys).
The Soviets were deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction but the mullahs of Iran are not. That ought to make you sh!t your pants at that thought. They believe that by bringing on global war they will hasten the return of the 12th "Hidden" Imam, known as the "Mahdi". Letting the Iranians get even close to a bomb is a colossal mistake that would completely destabilize the world we know (especially as the Saudis, Turks and Egyptians would then feel compelled to get their own nukes to counter the Iranians).
Also don't forget that Iran is working with North Korea. The North Korean's work on the nuke part (which means inspections find little in Iran these days), while the Iranians work on the long range missiles. Once they swap technology the world is in real trouble.
That's true. Superstitious people mis-attributing things they see. Worse though are those that take the myths and then exploit them for the purpose of control of others.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the right is gaining power is due to two things, IMHO: economic trouble due to overspending (as in, going too far down the socialist path with social programmes - having a little is great but too much is not affordable); the second thing is the perceived inaction on immigration and particularly the non-integration of Islamists into mainstream European society. This inaction (or even creation of laws that pander to Islamist demands) by the political elites is leading to an 'immune response' reaction by disaffected non-immigrant populations. The solution to defuse the right is for the EU to show actual leadership and state that Enlightenment liberties are not negotiable and the rights of Europeans will be protected regardless of 'cultural' complaints by immigrants. Integrate or leave is the simple message (which Australian Prime Minister Gillard was strong enough to state a few months back). Its all an ideological war of perception. The pitifully weak EU leadership are failing to address legitimate concerns of native Europeans, and the only people who are happen to be nasty fringe rightists. This needs to change.
The right is so thoroughly discredited by the real Nazis they will never be more than a nuisance. They will never be mainstream. However the Left is now mainstream and promote collective policies that are against individual liberties. As I said, the left is all for every diversity except for diversity in opinion (which is the one that really matters). In this way the Left are far more of a threat to liberty than the far Right. Also, the Left makes common cause with Islamists. This is why it is becoming increasingly un-orthodox to publicly oppose the evil totalitarian political ideology called Islam. When was the last time you saw a movie where the villians were jihadis? you don't, because the leftist movie industry, media and politicans white-wash what is reallty going on. If you like facts check out any of the YouTube videos by Stephen Coughlin (a fact-based former Pentagon analyst, before the leftist Obama Administration purged all fact-based official documentation on the jihadi threat and slow cultual Islamicization of the West). Or check out the shocking statistics of attacks at: http://www.religionofpeace.com/
Finally, ask yourself why your politicians and media are not telling you these *facts*? then ask yourself whether the view of the geopolitical situation as presented to you by the mainstream (leftist) narrative is accurate towards the facts I've given (and there are so much more I could give)? I hope I've picqued your interest and you start to discover what is really going on (and how the leadership in the West, including the EU, are hiding a great deal of information from you - which could significantly affect the liberties and freedoms we citizens cherish).
Oops, I can't type. Sorry for the typos.
You are a smart cookie. You were culturally close bro. I'm a New Zealander and a physicist (now in IT) - "first-order approximation" is a term we commonly used. I'm surprised Slashdotters don't know it.
I hate racism nearly as much as I despise the evil totalitarian political ideology called Islam. The fact that standing up for liberty by pointing out the threat of Islam gets you instantly branded as a Klansman (racist and violent) shows how badly the West is losing the ideological war against the creeping tyrrany of Islamism: which, if you look at the evidence, is slowly inhibiting our liberties, eg. look at the anti-free-speech UN HRC resolution 16/18 that criminalises free speech, push by none other than recent Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton against the First Ammendment of the US Constitution. The EU is slowly also becoming Sharia compliant, by adopting policies that are "politically correct" (not that 'pc' is the enemy of Free Speech) in order to avert violence from the growing numbers of Muslims in Europe. It is clear the EU governance does not care about the liberties of the citizenry otherwise they would never float laws preventing porn and dictating what its citizens may or may not think. Yes, this position seems whacky when you first encounter it, but the evidence is fairly clear that the EU is promoting (perhaps unwittingly) the goals of Islamists while progressively restricting the 'traditional' liberties of non-immigrant EU citizens. Once you put the pieces of the puzzle together you see how the leftist-Islamist agenda have the same goal: destruction of individual liberty and the supremacy of the collective. This is dangerous for those that rather like our liberties.
Standing up for political and individual freedom now gets one compared to a racist. Islam is against every freedom held dear by the West but to oppose it gets you condemned as equivalent to a racist. This is how far the left has warped discourse, that to hold a view opposing its narrative gets you instantly branded as a rascist. This is interesting because Islam is an evil totalitarian *political* ideology and not a race. That fact you don't understand this shows how far from the truth you thinking is. Here's a video to get you started thinking the correct way about what is *really going on in the World* (which the leftist EU and US leadership and compliant media downplay): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
I also highly recommend any of the YouTube videos by Stephen Coughlin (an analyst who used to brief the Pentagon, before the lefties in the Obama Administration shut down fact-based analysis of the Islamist threat). The West is losing the war on terrorism because the leftists (who are in alliance with the Islamists) are framing the debate so intelligent people don't ask the correct questions.
Calling someone a racist just because you don't understand their point of view is an 'easy out'. It is better to ask questions, you might learn something and get closer to the truth. I'm a physicist 'by trade', so "first-order approximation" means "in the right direction, but clearly could certainly use improvement for specific cases". So please stop using the leftist tactic of throwing racist slurs about for something you think you disagree with (because you don't actually understand what is being debated).
So, what justification do you have for the EU dictating what the citizens of the member states can think or not think. Where is the justification and consent of the populace in granting the EU that? how come the EU thinks it can do it.
What is certain is that you almost certainly don't understand what is going on globally. You may be in the mainstream with orthodox views but are still wrong. Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6lmUlT38_U
The Obama Administration is in denial and working against freedom due to their leftist views. The european elite are even more clueless. And it sounds like you have zero idea of what is going on as well. My position is not because I don't understand, it is because I understand far far more than those that listen only to the mainstream media (who are repeating a narrative that is flatly false). All decent analysts have the same conclusion, which goes against the narrative of the mainstream media. So don't be so smug, you know far less about what is really going on than you think. Please do the research - I beg you. We are running out of time.
That's what the stats say. However the EU is becoming increasingly "Sharia compliant" in the name of "tolerance" and "political correctness" - which are antithetical to Free Speech. Furthermore, the fact that the EU believes it can regulate the thought of its citizens shows how it is grabbing rights and powers it does not have. The eurosceptics were correct when they foresaw that the EU would turn into a monster that cares not a whit about its citizens, and cares more about the agendas of the bureaucrats running it. The EU has *no right* to dictate what Europeans may or may not think.
Wrong. What is Orwellian is the belief of the EU that it has the right to regulate the thoughts of its citizens, for any purpose. This is utterly wrong on a fundamental level, and should be opposed. I hope you see that now that it has been pointed out.
Well said. Even more insidious, the EU leadership believe they can regulate what is acceptable for citizens to *think*. There is no point having "Free Speech" if you can't actually exercise it. The EU administrators should be taken to task for this. They have *no right* to dictate what citizens may think. So EU citizens don't passively take this power grab lying down! complain ffs!
What an Orwellian purpose.
What is wrong with some stereotypes? each individual may be different but in aggregate they can be adequately described by stereotypes (as a first-order approximation). It is indeed Orwellian that the EU believe they have the right to create *thought crimes* instead of promoting free thinking. In fact this is the biggest and most retarded mistake of the political Left. They are for diversity and every perversity - except for the diversity that actually matters, *diversity of thought*. It is anathema to the political Left to allow views that are against their orthodoxy and they will suppress other views ruthlessly (which is what we see here). Orwellian is a great word to describe the belief of the EU governors that they have the right to regulate the thought of EU citizens. So don't scoff so lightly at this.
It's not naziism, it's "Sharia compliance". The ban on pr0n was defeated, for now. As the weak Europeans edge toward Eurabia expect more and more liberties to be challenged, successfully at first, and then eventually legislated away. The idiots running the EU do it in the spirit of "niceness" and "political correctness". Political Correctness is the *mortal enemy* of Free Speech. Every time a Slashdotter stands up for niceness and political correctness over Free Speech they are aiding an abetting those who seek to take liberties away (not just the Islamists, but the political Left as well).
Sorry but the US gov has a poor record on the truth.
That true. But your position seems to be to do nothing and let the enemies of liberty do as they will? it's hard to know whether that position is greater in terms of cowardice or stupidity. The enemies of freedom are getting increasingly active, if you care to look (most funded by Saudi or Iranian petrodollars). Doing nothing will not make the world a better place - despite the lies you are being told. The US is morally right to use force of arms to destroy tyrants (Saddam) and jihadis (Taliban and Al Qaeda). You might like to lie down and become a dhimmi, but the rest of us don't.
The biggest threat to the US is actually if the US economy tanks due to tax rises hitting the middle class and taking a huge dent out of consumer spending. The problem is that some people seem to think this would be a good idea to scare the country into voting republican. They think things like this as the very rich do not suffer as much in recessions as the middle class and the poor do.
Please note I'm not from the US. While taxing the "middle class" for little appreciable gain indeed problematic the real problem is as I stated - approximately 66 trillion in unfunded liabilities if the entitlements programmes are kept as they are. I agree with you that the Republicans are pretty much indistinguishable from the Democrats in terms of leadership failure. The Libertarians seem to make more sense, but there is a danger that they go past small government and lower taxes into total lassez faire deregulation (which is bad for common people and smaller businesses). The solutions are not easy but it is clear that the Big Government (and associated huge and growing spending) of the Democrats is the worst position of the lot.
In four years time he will be out of office and the US will be no different.
In four years he will be out of office but the US will be different. Already the Obama Administration has changed the World greatly - for the worse. Most Americans aren't really aware of the complete disaster of Benghazi and what its apparent causes were - and the compliant media doesn't hold Hiliary's feet to the fire for her utter incompetence (and that of the State Department). It also doesn't call Hilliary up of her total selling out of the Constitutional First Amendment by co-sponsoring UN HRC 16/18. It is clear for the current Administration that the US Constitution is a nuisance that should be neutered through new laws (Obama destroyed the Fifth Amendment with the NDAA - which his Administration forced the drafters to remove protections for US citizens [according to Senator Levine], and then he lied about "his reservations"; as I mentioned they neutered the First Amendment; and now they are after the Second). This may be news to you, as I said the media is complicit in covering up the sins of this Administration because they believe in its agenda (a Republican president doing the same stuff would have been impeached already). Am I a Republican? no, but I believe that they are far more sensible on economics and foreign policy than the Democrats. The damage being done by the Obama Administration (*accelerating* overspending, withdrawal from leading global alliances, and refusal to take a moral stance and promote Enlightenment Freedoms around the World [Obama's shameful actions in 2009 at the time of the Green Revolution and his ouster of Mubarak to promote the anti-liberty Muslim Brotherhood will mark him in history as an even worse president than Jimmy Carter - even if his supporters are so smitten they can't see it yet; you have to judge the action by the consequences, not by the ideals that made you do it]).
China will take at least 10 years, maybe longer to build up a large enough military to be a serious challenge to the US.
But that challenge will happen. The US is now cutting back existing units (costly, but a tiny fraction of those unfunded entitlement liabilities I mentioned) and will take a decade to rebuild them even if it started now (which it won't). Meanwhile, China appears to be working on building several more carriers based on an indigenous design (using the bought carrier to shake out bug in carrier operation). While China may always have fewer carriers, it almost certainly will have *local* numerical parity (or even superiority) in any conflict. That will make any future war with China uncertain, and very bloody even if the US came out on top [note: such a war will be almost entirely naval and air, ground forces don't factor much in the likely Pacific combat scenarios]. So, the fact that Obam
The only counter to nuclear weapons is the threat of other nuclear weapons. Carriers are insignificant compared to the capability of even a few ballistic missiles. Carriers are handy because they can be used at lower levels of conflict, so they have their uses. However, the top of the defence food chain are nuclear weapons (with several different types of delivery options). There is no substitute for nuclear weapons for global powers. Unilaterally pursuing nuclear disarmament is utter insanity - there are countries in the World who would nuke a disarmed US without blinking. For example, Iran and North Korea say they would on nearly a daily basis - which doesn't make their threats hollow as some people believe - but show that the enemies of the US have the will but are in fact deterred for now by the large US nuclear arsenal.
Most people in the US don't know that the Iranians have installed around sixteen Shahab 3 missiles in a mountain redoubt in Venezuela: http://www.topix.com/forum/ve/caracas/TFOGPR88FQV6RHJGC This missile can't quite reach the US but with extended ranges of successors (from shared missile tehcnology between Iran and North Korea) and the Iranian nuclear weapons program the citizenry of the US ought to be very very concerned - and certainly not allowing Obama to progressively disarm the ultimate deterrent that the US has (that is, its nuclear triad). I'm glad I don't live in the US - its enemies are working on its destruction while its leaders are busy squabbling over how to bribe voters by spending money it doesn't have (note that the massive spending is nearly all on social programmes; despite what you are told, defence is a pittance in comparison).
The big problem is not so much the manufacturing to produce effective warheads but the problem that many of the guys with experience to build effective warheads are retired or dead.
The point of most nukes is to destroy other nukes in their silos. That's what nuclear war was all about - who has the capability to strike first and who can take a strike and have enough warheads left to have a credible retaliatory strike. This is called the "counterforce" mission and is very important in nuclear strategy. The strategy of hitting cities is very secondary and is called "countervalue". Hitting population centres is not primary goal of nuclear war - usually you go for their nukes, their military installations, their oil production and refining and their manufacturing. Where this is close to cities then the cities get roasted. It turns out to do these things it actually takes quite a few nukes, especially if your opponent has anti-ballistic missile (ABM) capabilities as the US and Russia do (and to a limited extent, Israel), and presumably China is also working on this.
The principal effect of 50 nuclear warheads aimed at remote silos (notice how in the US, Russia and China the silos are in the middle-of-nowhere?) is probably insignificant on a national scale and certainly on a global scale with regards to blast and fallout. They can have an effect on the climate but this is peanuts compared to something like Krakatoa and probably even smaller events like the Iceland volcanic eruptions or Mount St Helens.
One doesn't have to agree, or disagree, with nuclear war to understand that it is not entirely madness to wage it. The thousands of nukes weren't built for no reason - a careful calculus was made to ensure first strike survivability. As each side in the Cold War did new calculations the numbers climbed - but the numbers weren't arbitrary - they were the result of careful study.
Oh, and here's a total babe, Rebeccah Heinreichs, talking about Obama's unilateral cuts to the US nuclear triad - who *analysis* believes that around 2700 warheads are needed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JY0r2rxZPk
Note that Obama's cuts are not really about saving money money. After all, he'd save vastly more by limiting entitlements and social programmes (the unfunded liabilities being promised completely dwarf even the current US deficit). The cuts also are not because the nukes aren't needed, they are needed for decades to come and for unseen threats in the next 50 years. The cuts are all purely ideologically based on Obama's (flawed) world view. Sadly, his supporters don't want to face the truth about his intentions to remake America by first breaking it by overspending and weakening its traditional strengths. Obama wants to unilaterally disarm and surrender the US to the world. He's already abandoned many allies. The world is about to get very chaotic as a result of a lack of strong leadership from secular democracies lead by the US.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and unlimited budgets that come with fear of death. The united states developed the atomic bomb during wartime in 4 years. A real war between NATO vs Russia or China would most definitely require a ground invasion. The buildup to that invasion would take years during which current assets would be deployed to secure strategic advantage rather than on a head on fight. The use of nuclear weapons would most likely only prolong the war as the devastation will significantly diminish the strength of both camps
Sorry dude, you can't be a student of history. Despite the Russian's public statements about tactical nuclear weapons in the Cold War their war plans involved using them in massive numbers at the outset (that's the Russian mentality, use your best weapons first, not last like silly Westerners). Also, the Group of Soviet Forces Germany (GSFG) were poised to invade on a hair trigger alert. War could have started with zero warning. Today war between China and the US could start in days, because in the Pacific ground forces are nearly irrelevant - it is also sea nad air forces, which can go into action very very quickly.
F/A-18 is not a fine dog fighter. It's strength is in the low-speed scissors, but has to survive long enough to get to that point. That's not to say the F/A-18 sux, far from it. But there are much better dogfighting aircraft out there: F-16, MiG-29, Su-27 - because these were built for close-in knifefights. The Hornet excels at global multi-role and is pretty good at long-ranged BVR fights. It's ok in the dogfight but not great.
True. Look at how the French were able to decisively win in Mali because of their highly capable *Rafale* and their Special Forces. Using them is much much cheaper then many divisions on the ground. Only a reinforced regiment was needed.
Yes, but the SuperHornet does not have the capabilities of the F-35. We could extend your logic to an extreme case and say that your could produce Spitfires these days with lower mass and smaller budget than years ago, but would you want to be in a Spitfire against an F-35 (or Su-30, or PAK FA, or F-20) ? Similarly, the F-35 is more expensive than the SuperHornet because it is a next gen fighter that is superior to the Super Hornet. The F-35 is a slug with a full fuel load but by the time it gets to the combat zone/FEBA it has burnt off most of that fuel and its performance becomes pretty good. It is also more stealthy and has better electronics (offensive and defensive) and much better situational awareness for the pilot with better displays and better datalinking. The SuperHornet is simply not as capable as the F-35. The people against the F-35 are those against all military equipment (and Boeing in this specific case, since they are trying to use teething problems to convince politicians to take their product that cannot compete on capability).
Look at the intakes on the SuperHornet, and other parts of the redesign. Partial stealth is part of all new designs. It is not comprehensive stealth features but it is "significant" in reducing the radar cross section is a tactically significant way.
Then the tech and designs exists in the case you need to spin up production. Otherwise, you're just gambling.
Utterly false. The time to produce and test modern technology is long (I don't mean the R&D, I mean build each unit and test it). An even longer time is required to get crews up to speed (5 to 10 years). In modern full-scale war (which as far as I know, the US still intends to win when it has one) you pretty much are limited to the inventory on hand at the outbreak - there is simply not enough time to manufacture equipment and train the numbers of crews in the time scale of the conflict. Modern conventional war is so destructive, intensely paced and voracious of stores that it cannot be expected to last more than a few months at the most. Yes, they said this about World War I (aka "The Great War") but they didn't have precision guided munitions nor tactical nukes.
To summarize. Your post is wrong. When tensions rise over national core interests you usually have a matter of months to prepare before conflict starts and a matter of months to conclude the strategic situation in your favor. To win a war you have to set the conditions up well before the conflict starts. This is what the US has done in the past. China is smart enough that it is doing it now. Set the conditions up so that fighting is not even necessary, they are already working their way to regional air and sea dominance (which is what matters in their region) before any fighting takes place.
Not in combat it's not. Same with the F-22. Sexy technology that wasn't used in the last 12 years of tactical bombing of a country with no fighters or anti-air infrastructure. Even the B-2 saw action.
The reason the USAF hasn't been challenged for decades is because it is so powerful no-one dares to fight it. The US economy can afford its military (which is mostly a jobs program with teeth) because the US economy is huge [it is borrowing to fund voter-bribe entitlement programmes that is destroying the US; as this completely dwarfs Department of Defence spending]. If the USAF looks like it will become vulnerable then expect the uppity folks around the World to start wars that the US will have little choice to avoid - this will be much more expensive that maintaining the USAF air dominance fleet. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" n' all that. It is much much cheaper to maintain Pax Americana through a strong military then to be "penny wise and pound foolish" and slip back into an even more expensive multi-polar world. Think strategically.
Iran is not working on building nuclear weapons. It is working on building the *capability* to build the weapons. Going from the capability to actual weapons would be very quick. At the moment conventional Iran cannot be contained (eg. look at its funding and support of brutal Hamas and Hezbollah; manufacturing and sending ammunition to extends the Arab vs African massacres in Sudan (where it created unmarked ammo so it couldn't be traced - it took quite a while to find the source was Iran). Then there are the Sahab missiles Iran has installed in venezuela, which will eventually be able to attack the US (when they are upgraded, and then get nuke warheads). Then we have the other attacks around the world it has conducted by Iran: Argentina, Bulgaria, Georgia, Lebanon, Syria, India, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught, so there is no question who it was).
Note also that the Iranian programme is spread over three dozen dispersed sites we know about. This is completely unnecessary for civilian research. You have to be willfully blind to think they aren't working on acquiring the *capability* of a bomb (which is pretty much the same as a bomb for those guys).
The Soviets were deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction but the mullahs of Iran are not. That ought to make you sh!t your pants at that thought. They believe that by bringing on global war they will hasten the return of the 12th "Hidden" Imam, known as the "Mahdi". Letting the Iranians get even close to a bomb is a colossal mistake that would completely destabilize the world we know (especially as the Saudis, Turks and Egyptians would then feel compelled to get their own nukes to counter the Iranians).
Also don't forget that Iran is working with North Korea. The North Korean's work on the nuke part (which means inspections find little in Iran these days), while the Iranians work on the long range missiles. Once they swap technology the world is in real trouble.
That's true. Superstitious people mis-attributing things they see. Worse though are those that take the myths and then exploit them for the purpose of control of others.