wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:29:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:04:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The cold war is over. The new (global) war is economic. It's been that
way
for quite a while. China and Russia have no interest in fighting us.


I agree and we are in a whole lot worse shape in the economic war than
we ever were in the cold war.
A problem would come up if someone popped a nuke on their front porch
tho.

I disagree that we're in a lot worse shape than China or Russia, unless
you
mean we're in a lot worse shape lately.

Yes and I don't see it getting better any time soon. Russia is a train
wreck but China is projected to pass us as the biggest economy in a
decade.

Honestly, I don't either. It's going to take another 3-4 years to turn
around the current train wreck that has been visited upon us from the last
10 years. If the Republicans get back into power, their stated goal is to
return to the Bush-era style of laissez-faire governance, ref. Pete Sessions
I believe.

I don't think bigger is necessarily better, as far as economies go. China
has a huge number of systemic problems. Everyone keeps saying just wait, in
another X-number of years, they'll whatever (rule the world, you pick), but
it hasn't happened so far.

The greatest threat is from a terrorist acquiring something like a nuke or
biological weapons and being able to deploy it.

Certainly that is the most likely scenario and it will be hard to pick
the country we would want to strike back at but I am sure we will pick
one, right or wrong

Yeah, that's possibly true.

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:36:44 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:10:09 -0400, John H
wrote:

The Russians and Chinese are not much of a military threat, I doubt
they ever were. The problem with China is the economic threat. They
hold enough of our money to crush us.
Spending as much as we do on defense is foolish. That is one of the
factors that brought down the Soviets and what is keeping North Korea
in poverty.

I'm glad to see they're not and never were a threat. Given the truth of that
statement, you're correct - we've wasted a lot of money over the past 60 or so
years.

But...
--

In a world dominated by Mutually assured destruction, it is not a
military threat. There may be a threat to the whole planet but
strategically everyone was gridlocked if we wanted anyone to survive.

Our government has consistently over reported the Soviet threat,
whether it was the 1960 missile gap, the ability of their subs or the
capability of the Mig 25.

The reality is we are far more likely to be nuked by a terrorist
weapon than we ever were by the Soviets. Destabilizing Pakistan
certainly is very troubling in that regard.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The reason we were in a world dominated by MAD was because we
percieved a threat which, as you've pointed out, did not exist.

We should never have built up our forces to counter the, in your words, '...not
much of a military threat'.

Yes, we needlessly wasted a lot of money. Putting forces in Europe to offset the
scores of Soviet tank divisions aimed for the Fulda Gap was another waste of
money.
--
John H

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:23:01 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 06:00:13 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:03:31 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 00:41:53 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

How does a sub attack a nuclear plant built inside a mountain?

what weapons do you think a sub can carry?

Nothing that will penetrate a mountain without starting WWIII

?? iran doesn't have the capabilty to start WWIII.

No but the Russians and the Chinese do and they would have the fallout
from that mountain landing on them.

In real life WWI started over a whole lot less.

and we would as well. and no one would start a world war over
fallout. do you think the chinese would risk beijing for teheran?

Perhaps you don't understand what fallout is.

well let's see...i have an MS in chemical physics and live about 100
miles east of 3 mile island

yes, i know what fallout is.

We grew up in the 50s
worried about some minimal fallout from an air burst. If you tried to
auger something out of a mountain with a nuke the fallout would be
massive

really? how much fallout was there from the 15 KT devices that
leveled the japanese cities? a 15KT nuke would pretty much destroy
anything the iranians have built.


.. It could be a world changing event killing millions of people
from radiation caused disease in a year or two.

got proof? because that didn't happen in japan.

On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 14:25:12 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:05:31 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


. It could be a world changing event killing millions of people
from radiation caused disease in a year or two.

got proof? because that didn't happen in japan.


They were both air bursts in Japan (around 2000 feet) and did not dig
out much of a hole in the ground. It certainly did not do enough
damage to hurt a hardened structure inside a mountain.

and a small nuke in a bunker buster configuration...uh...how much dirt
woudl that throw up?

it's self sealing. in fact, the more material that escapes, the less
effective the blast.

simple matter of physics