The War on Terror

[Guest]

Mr. Coffee stated:
We're fighting an enemy that sees victory as an absolute. Instead of being a nation of pussies, perhaps we should adopt the mannert of warfare that our enemies offer us.

The Ever Changing Definition of “Mission” In Iraq
A headline in the Washington Post today declares “Bush Defends Strategy In Iraq, Pledges to ‘Complete the Mission’.” The trouble is that Bush has changed the definition of “mission” so many times, it’s hard to have any confidence in his most recent declarations.

Bush: “Our mission is clear in Iraq. Should we have to go in, mission is very clear: disarmament. 6/3/03

AFTER THE WAR BEGAN, THE MISSION EXPANDED
Bush: “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.” 3/22/03

Bush: “Our forces have been given a clear mission: to end a regime that threatened its neighbors and the world with weapons of mass destruction and to free a people that had suffered far too long.” [4/14/03]

THEN THE MISSION WAS COMPLETE
Bush: “On Thursday, I visited the USS Abraham Lincoln, now headed home after the longest carrier deployment in recent history. I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: Their mission is complete, and major combat operations in Iraq have ended..” 5/3/03

BUT THEN IT CONTINUED AGAIN
Bush: “The United States and our allies will complete our mission in Iraq.” 7/30/03

THEN THE MISSION WAS TO DEVELOP A FREE IRAQ
Bush: “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens.” 11/4/03
Bush: “We will see that Iraq is free and self-governing and democratic. We will accomplish our mission.”5/4/04

AND TO TRAIN THE IRAQI TROOPS
Bush: “And our mission is clear there, as well, and that is to train the Iraqis so they can do the fighting; make sure they can stand up to defend their freedoms, which they want to do.” 6/2/05

NOW, COMPLETION OF THE MISSION IS FAR FROM CLEAR
Bush: “We’re making progress toward the goal, which is, on the one hand, a political process moving forward in Iraq, and on the other hand, the Iraqis capable of defending themselves And we will — we will complete this mission for the sake of world peace.” 6/20/05

Read this and more.

Additionally learn:

Read A mission in Iraq built on a lie.

Mr. Coffee stated:
If you're going to fight a war, don't “F” around about it. Kill the enemy and win by any means available and/or necessary in order to end the conflict as soon as possible.

You fail to realize that in the past six years “the enemy,” as described by Bush changes over night. What/who is the enemy? Not Saddam Hussein -- he is dead. Not the Iraqi regime -- it’s gone.

Now we hear of a shift of mission to Iran.

Just what do you have in mind when you say win the war? I’m skeptical that you have much idea. Just kill. But just whom do we kill? And how long do you consider the war to kill “them all” will take? And just how much wealth and life are you prepared to take to “kill them all”?

You appear to have given this little thought. Emotional tirades don’t benefit your position.

Mr. Coffee stated:
Plain English Translation: "I'm a damned idiot and can't actually argue the topic, so instead I'll make retarded asshole strawmen arguments to hide the fac that I'm a complete damned idiot on the topic at hand!"

Yes, Mr. Coffee. I think you have summed up yourself rather well in that comment.

Mr. Coffee stated:
Did I ever mention anything that ever remotely resembled me caring what the rest of the world thought of my nation or it's actions other than them having a very healthy sense of fear out of what we might do to them if they “F” with us?

No. I did. And what the global Western world thinks of the US is of critical importance to the US. We buy oil from the Middle East. We could not withstand a trade embargo on oil against the US.

So what China, India, Europe, Russia, and other countries think of the US is of critical importance to our capacity to do business and to function.

So, while you may not care, the fact is that the US as a world player must care how it’s perceived by other countries. The US cannot go it alone. You imply that we could and take a naïve position.

The US cannot afford to continue to make the kind of mistakes it has made in recent times and be respected. Just having military capacity does not produce regard. And mistakes which kill innocent people in an ill-conceived and ill-planned invasion of Iraq has diminished the status of the US around the world.

Mr. Coffee stated:
I'd start be using the above post of yours as a sound case for you being a dishonest shithead or an ignorant fuckhead. Take your pick, dumbass.


I’m sure you had a point in mind here. Are you familiar with the term ad hominem? It means attacking person rather than addressing issues in a debate/discussion. Name-calling is ad hominem. It never benefits the position of one who uses it, Mr. Coffee.

JAK wrote previously:
And do you favor nuclear bombs?

Mr. Coffee stated:
Yes, I do. I am in favor of anything that maximizes enemy casualty rates, thereby shorterning the conflict.

Just where specifically would you favor using nuclear bombs?

Second, what makes you think nuclear bombs would shorten conflict?

How would you rehabilitate a country which would suffer countless civilian deaths and radiation disease?

There are many more questions, but you can start with these two.

Mr. Coffee stated:
But they (nuclear bombs) are outstanding at oibliterating important strategic targets.

The US track record for hitting “strategic targets” is not good. Many innocent civilians have died when bombs the US dropped hit the wrong target. The US also has hit the target it intended to hit only to learn after the fact that no enemy was at the target but only civilians with no military significance.

The above has been well documented and admitted by the US military. With that in mind, just where would you use nuclear bombs? How would you assure that the nuclear bombs didn’t hit the wrong target?

Mr. Coffee stated:
Killing the enemy's population is just an added bonusthat enhances the effects of the weapon and brings the enmy to their knees that much more rapidly.

And so your position is that the US is justified and benefited by killing general populations? We have done that in Iraq (without nuclear weapons). How do you perceive that the US is now in a superior position internationally or even selfishly? Donald Rumsfeld (Bush’s Secretary of Defense) said the war would be 6 weeks to 6 months -- no longer. He was wrong. The policy failed. Nevertheless, the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis is a confirmed fact.

Had we used nuclear bombs (which you favor), the death count would be far greater. In addition, the entire area would have been so contaminated by radiation that the oil (the real objective of the US) could not be obtained by anyone without suffering radiation sickness and exponentially increased cancer in those who venture into areas hit by nuclear bombs (which you favor).

How would this result benefit any country?

Mr. Coffee stated:
Wow, so not only are you a distortionistic fuckhead, you're also completely damned ignorant on nuclear weapons or their effectsa too!

What is this, two-for-one day at the retard home?

It is you “ignorant on nuclear weapons.” You present no evidence. Here is some evidence for you.

In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited. And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been. There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas.

Nobody knows, of course, how many megatons would be exploded in a real nuclear war. There are some who think that a nuclear war can be "contained," bottled up before it runs away to involve much of the world's arsenals. But a number of detailed analyses, war games run by the U.S. Department of Defense, and official Soviet pronouncements all indicate that this containment may be too much to hope for: Once the bombs begin exploding, communications failures, disorganization, fear, the necessity of making in minutes decisions affecting the fates of millions, and the immense psychological burden of knowing that your own loved ones may already have been destroyed are likely to result in a nuclear paroxysm. Many investigations, including a number of studies for the U.S. government, envision the explosion of 5,000 to 10,000 megatons -- the detonation of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that now sit quietly, inconspicuously, in missile silos, submarines and long-range bombers, faithful servants awaiting orders.

The World Health Organization, in a recent detailed study chaired by Sune K. Bergstrom (the 1982 Nobel laureate in physiology and medicine), concludes that 1.1 billion people would be killed outright in such a nuclear war, mainly in the United States, the Soviet Union, Europe, China and Japan. An additional 1.1 billion people would suffer serious injuries and radiation sickness, for which medical help would be unavailable. It thus seems possible that more than 2 billion people-almost half of all the humans on Earth-would be destroyed in the immediate aftermath of a global thermonuclear war. This would represent by far the greatest disaster in the history of the human species and, with no other adverse effects, would probably be enough to reduce at least the Northern Hemisphere to a state of prolonged agony and barbarism. Unfortunately, the real situation would be much worse. In technical studies of the consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, there has been a dangerous tendency to underestimate the results. This is partly due to a tradition of conservatism which generally works well in science but which is of more dubious applicability when the lives of billions of people are at stake. In the Bravo test of March 1, 1954, a 15-megaton thermonuclear bomb was exploded on Bikini Atoll. It had about double the yield expected, and there was an unanticipated last-minute shift in the wind direction. As a result, deadly radioactive fallout came down on Rongelap in the Marshall Islands, more than 200 kilometers away. Most all the children on Rongelap subsequently developed thyroid nodules and lesions, and other long-term medical problems, due to the radioactive fallout.

It is now almost 40 years since the invention of nuclear weapons. We have not yet experienced a global thermonuclear war -- although on more than one occasion we have come tremulously close. I do not think our luck can hold forever. Men and machines are fallible, as recent events remind us. Fools and madmen do exist, and sometimes rise to power. Concentrating always on the near future, we have ignored the long-term consequences of our actions. We have placed our civilization and our species in jeopardy.

Read the entire article written in 1982 -- Carl Sagan

JAK wrote previously:
Do you know what a nuclear winter is?

Mr. Coffee stated:
Yes. it's a complete damned fabrication perpetuated by fear-mongering retards who don't have the first damned clue about nuclear weapons or their effects.

Wrong. If you skipped the article above, read it. The best world-scientists agree with Carl Sagan regarding the reality of a nuclear winter given a large-scale nuclear war.

Keep in mind that several countries now have nuclear weapons. In addition, many countries which don’t have them want them.

You’re badly misinformed.
Britannica Encyclopedia describes it this way.

“Environmental devastation that some scientists contend would result from a nuclear war. The basic cause would be huge fireballs created by exploding nuclear warheads which would ignite great fires (firestorms). Smoke, soot, and dust would be lifted to high altitudes and driven by winds to form a uniform belt encircling the Northern Hemisphere. The clouds could block out all but a fraction of the Sun's light, and surface temperatures would plunge for as much as several weeks. The semi-darkness, killing frosts, and subfreezing temperatures, combined with high doses of radiation, would interrupt plant photosynthesis and could thus destroy much of the Earth's vegetation and animal life.”

Mis-calculation on nuclear war would likely parallel mis-calculation on the Iraqi war. The result has been far worse than the world was mis-lead to believe by the Iraq war proponents.

Worse, the war has energized opponents of the US making them more dedicated to the defeat of the US and US led militaries. Some supporters of the US have withdrawn their support. They have recalled all their soldiers. So the US has virtually no support for its “kill the enemy” view which you hold.

In fact, war-makers mis-calculate or deliberately lie about justification for war. Iraq is a current and prime example. Viet Nam was another.

Mr. Coffee stated:
Show me solid evidence that the US, much less every nuclear armed nation on earth, has the combined weapons output to destroy all human life.

I have shown you that evidence. Read Carl Sagan above.

Studies of ancient wildfires support Carl Sagan in his theory of Nuclear Winter. Nuclear exchange would lead to large climatic effects.

NewScience

Read the link above for more evidence on nuclear winter.

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05

Keep in mind that top scientists recognize the probability of nuclear winter as a result of a sufficient number of nuclear explosions on the planet.

JAK

[_Mr. Coffee]

Wonk Wonk Wonk, more offtopic BS about Iraq, wonk wonk wonk

Yo, retard... What the “F” does Iraq have to do with the topic of discussion other than to serve as an example for why US warfighting doctrine should change into the ways I've described?

Let me clue you in onsomething, shithead...

I never have been in support of OIF. I think iraq is the greatest free-range military clusterfuck since Woodrow Wilson got us involved in WWI. Iraq is a shining example of how NOT to wage a war. Personally, I think Dubya and every last one of his advisors should be brought before a General Court Marshall and tried for every damned punitive article except desertion(art. 85), and then sentanced to spend their remaining days turning big rocks into little rocks at Levenworth. The pathological desire the Bush Administration seems to have in wanting to ignore every damned thing the commanders on the ground or the commanders in the JCS have to say on how best to fight a war is staggering.

So yeah, I completely agree with you that Iraq is a giant clusterfuck. If anything Iraq shows why warfighting should be left to the warriors, and once a country decided to go to war, other than issuing a couple of broadly defined goals, the civilian side of the chain of command needs to have a giant glass of shut the “F” up while the military goes and does its job. If you have to go to war, then you do not use half-measures, you don't pussy foot about it. You do whatever it takes to bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible.

You know... The exact opposite of how Iraq has been handled!

No. I did. And what the global Western world thinks of the US is of critical importance to the US. We buy oil from the Middle East. We could not withstand a trade embargo on oil against the US.

We could withstand it just fine. In fact, I distinctly recall a bunch of sandy assholes from Opec pulling that crap back in the 1970s, and not only did we surviveit, it actually benifited us in the long term.

So what China, India, Europe, Russia, and other countries think of the US is of critical importance to our capacity to do business and to function.

Yes, because any of them are going to be willing to do anything to seriously piss off their largest customer?

So, while you may not care, the fact is that the US as a world player must care how it’s perceived by other countries.

If they value their economiexs, they'll sit back and make the appropriate noises, but ultimately they'll just stay out of our way like they've always done.

The US cannot go it alone. You imply that we could and take a naïve position.

Militarilly we do not need anyone else. The only thing stopping us from unleashing the full might of our military is whiney no-load assholes like you, who are more preoccupied with what other nations think then you are with your own nation's safety and well being.

The US cannot afford to continue to make the kind of mistakes it has made in recent times and be respected. Just having military capacity does not produce regard.

Seems to scare the bejeezus out of folks when we rattle sabers at them. Scare them even wrose when we draw that saber and run someone though with it. We steam a couple of CVBGs into an ajacent body opf water and people get real quite like. We foward deploy an airwing of B-52Hs and people get damned quiet. When we forward deploy a few brigades of the US Army, they start looking for a place to hide.

When we float a division strength Marine Air Ground Task Force off their coast, they start making phone calls to the white house asking how they can best make us happy.

I’m sure you had a point in mind here. Are you familiar with the term ad hominem? It means attacking person rather than addressing issues in a debate/discussion. Name-calling is ad hominem. It never benefits the position of one who uses it, Mr. Coffee.

Calling someone a name is NOT an ad hominem attack, dumbass. Simple insults != Ad Hominem.

Just where specifically would you favor using nuclear bombs?

First, use them in a counter-C3I role and for SEAD for softening up enemy airdefences and communications prior to landing. Then use them in a counter-infrastructure/counter-military role by hitting enemy airbases in order to destroy their ability to contest dominence of the airspace over their country.

In the first thrity minutes of the conflict we no own their skies and have blinded and deafened their military.

Second, what makes you think nuclear bombs would shorten conflict?

Two things, scale and shock value.

Due to the power of nuclear weapons, you can destroy a much larger ammount of targets using a lot less force. They're effiecent at what they do. The sheer shock value of having nuclear weapons used on you would instill a sort of strategic paralysis in the enemy force. They'll be so busy trying to understand what has just happened to them that they won't be able to offer a credible resistanse to an invasion force.

How would you rehabilitate a country which would suffer countless civilian deaths and radiation disease?

In the same manner that we did with Japan. Something you'll notice about US military history is we have this habit of returning the land we conquer to its people and then help them rebuild.

As far as radiological effects go, without getting into classified information, modern devices are extremely effiecent and produce virtually no long term radiological by-products. Especially if the devices are initiated as an airburst or a subsureface delayed laydown. The only time you actually have to worry about any seriously radiological effects is with a direct contact surface laydown where the fireball can actually suck a lot of debrie into the fireball where it will be exposed to large ammounts of fast-neutron and gamma radiation.

Contrary to what a lot of people think, if you're close enough to the initiation point to worry about absorbing a leathal ammount of radation, you'e already standing inside the fireball. That's due to the mechanics of how the devices work and a simple mathematical principle governing explosions called the inverse square law.

The above has been well documented and admitted by the US military. With that in mind, just where would you use nuclear bombs? How would you assure that the nuclear bombs didn’t hit the wrong target?

Strategic assets that you'd use a nuclear weapon on tend to be very prominent structures, like railheads, airports, powerplants, ect. You seem to assume that one would use nuclear weapons as precision guided weapons to hit a single building, or even a room within a building (which we could with right device/delivery system). And due to the placement of many strategic targests, your counter-industrial/force/infrastructure strike is going to be inherently counter-population. So yeah, civilians are going to get glassed.

But to answer the question...

I'd insure that they hit there targests by making sure that the devices RTD (radius of total destruction) was larger than the CEP (circular area of probability) of the delivery system.

And so your position is that the US is justified and benefited by killing general populations? We have done that in Iraq (without nuclear weapons).

Why not? We've done so in the past. It really wasn't until reciently that the proliferation of PGMs has seemed to make people believe that we should only hit enemy positions and never, ever kill civilians as collateral damage.

It's all part of that concept of "TOTAL WAR" I mentioned. You do what ever it takes to end the conflict as rapidly as possible, there by saving the lives of your people. If that means the enemy suffers a lot of civilian casualties, oh well. Them's the breaks.

Donald Rumsfeld (Bush’s Secretary of Defense) said the war would be 6 weeks to 6 months -- no longer. He was wrong. The policy failed.

No doubt about that. Rumsfeld is another example of what is wrong with how we fight wars.

It would have only taken six weeks to six months had Rumsfeld and Bush used the operations plans given to them by the JCS. The original plans called for an invasion force of 500,000-750,000 troops, which would have given us plenty of forces to overwelm the Iraqis while securing the areas we had taken with a garrison force large enough to crush any insurgency forces left in the wake of the main body.

Instead, Rumsfeld thought it'd be best to go in with less than 200,000 troops and make a mad dash for Bagdad, leaving vast parts of Iraq completely unsecured.

You point was what, again?

Had we used nuclear bombs (which you favor), the death count would be far greater.

Not really. The only strategic assets in heavily populated areas in Iraq were Saddam International Airport and a couple of bridgeheads that we needed intact for our own use.

We could have parked a pair of W-88s dialed down to 50kt on Saddam International and hit Saddam's residence with another and only killed maybe the same ammount of less than we did with the inconcieved clusterfuck of an invasion we actually carried out.

In addition, the entire area would have been so contaminated by radiation that the oil (the real objective of the US) could not be obtained by anyone without suffering radiation sickness and exponentially increased cancer in those who venture into areas hit by nuclear bombs (which you favor).

So you are one of those ignorant "Nuclear weapons are teh EVIL!!!L!!!1! Radiation BAD !!!11!" morons. Hate to be the one to tell you, but modern devices don't put out much seriously harmful radiological by-products. They especially don't produce much when used as an airburst, which wouldn't yopu know it, happens to be the prefered deliver method as it best enhances blast and thermal effects.

In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited.

BS. I can show you using a blast effects calculator and a demographic map of London that if you dropped a 2MT devices dead center of the city that you'd destroy less than 10% of its buildings and infrastructure and kill less than 20% of its inhabitants.

The only things that would be "vaporized" would be those that were inside the fireball (which is only an area of about 700m in diameter for a 2MT device initiated at optimum altitude). Ionizing radionation levels would drop below lethal limits at less than 1km from the initiation point. The blast wave would only destroy heavy concrete and brick structures out to 2.5km. Themeral effects would drop below being able to ignite wood or cause 2nd/3rd dregee burns at around 5km.

And that's for a very large 2 megaton device. Most devices in service with anyone's military aren't even half that powerful. Your average device had a yield of around 250kt. We learned a long time ago that smaller yield and more accurate weapons are more economical than very large devices.

And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been.

Yes, if you were to initiate the device on the ground. But guess what... There are relitively few targets that require a direct surface laydown to destroy.

There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas.

BS. Maybe at the height of the cold war there were anywhere near that many devices. Today, thanks to START II and SALT, both the US and Russia are limited to 6,800 devices each, with only 2800 of them on active deployable status.

France, China, and the UK between them have less than 1000 devices. The indians and Pakistanis have less than 100 between them.

Israel has maybe 250 devices.

Total yield of every damned thing everyone has ius less than 5GT. Not even enough to recreate the impact event that killed the dinosaurs.

Read the entire article written in 1982 -- Carl Sagan

Carl damned Sagan's retarded "nuclear Winter" scenario? You mean the same one where Sagan and his co-authors got laughed out of serious academic circles because of piss poor data analysis and modeling?

They used a featurless 2D model of the earth and assumed 1. way to many nuclear weapons than even existed at the time, and 2. that every last one of them would be initiated as a surface detonation, for “F”'s sake. That Nuclear Winter horse crap got shot down decades ago.

Wrong. If you skipped the article above, read it. The best world-scientists agree with Carl Sagan regarding the reality of a nuclear winter given a large-scale nuclear war.

Ok, then name some scientists. Show me the names of credible scientists who have objectively looked over Sagan's theory of nuclear winter and actually agreed with it.

I want to see some PhDs in high energy physics, geology, nuclear physics, ect and not some dumbasses from the Liberal Arts department.

Beter yet, how about some people that have actually worked on or around nuclear weapons?

Keep in mind that several countries now have nuclear weapons. In addition, many countries which don’t have them want them.

I have shown you that evidence. Read Carl Sagan above.

Yes, evidence that is over two decades out of date and have long since been discredited.

Studies of ancient wildfires support Carl Sagan in his theory of Nuclear Winter. Nuclear exchange would lead to large climatic effects.

Yes, because we're goinbg to fire nuclear weapons into forrests and not at heavilly built up urban areas that would mitigate, if not completely eliminate, the threat of massive wildfires?

There are so many baseless assumptions in Sagan's theory that the on;y reason I can think of for why people evn took the man seriously was because of his name and previous reputation.

Keep in mind that top scientists recognize the probability of nuclear winter as a result of a sufficient number of nuclear explosions on the planet.

Ok, then name some of them. Shop me studies that corroborate Sagan's idea instead of just regurgitating them.

I mean, for “F”'s sake, after you're retarded little diatribe on how bad ass a 2MT device is, I'm frimly convinced you don't have the first goddamned clue as to how nuclear devices work, how they are used, or what they can do.

[_dartagnan]

It's a beautiful setup in that the war can be perpetual. There is no point where you can say you won. Even the Cold War had an ending (end of the threat or thermonuclear destruction). I don't think it was intentional but since it's fallen into people's laps they're likely to use it.....for a quite a while. I just think terrorism is here to stay.

The threat of thermonuclear destruction is very much alive and well. The thing is the cold war ended because everyone believed the threat had died with the U.S.S.R. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I’d venture to guess that a Putin led Russia is more of a threat than a Gorbechev led Soviet Union. Hell, this guy is threatening to point missiles at Europe just because we want to install a missile defense system over there. He also wants to help Iran become a nuclear power.

by the way, I get what Coffee is saying. Technically it is possible to win the war if we’re willing to kill everyone. Obviously we could kill everyone. The thing is, we’re not going to and I think everyone knows this. Whether we should is another question.

[_barrelomonkeys]

It's a beautiful setup in that the war can be perpetual. There is no point where you can say you won. Even the Cold War had an ending (end of the threat or thermonuclear destruction). I don't think it was intentional but since it's fallen into people's laps they're likely to use it.....for a quite a while. I just think terrorism is here to stay.

The threat of thermonuclear destruction is very much alive and well. The thing is the cold war ended because everyone believed the threat had died with the U.S.S.R. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I’d venture to guess that a Putin led Russia is more of a threat than a Gorbechev led Soviet Union. Hell, this guy is threatening to point missiles at Europe just because we want to install a missile defense system over there. He also wants to help Iran become a nuclear power.

by the way, I get what Coffee is saying. Technically it is possible to win the war if we’re willing to kill everyone. Obviously we could kill everyone. The thing is, we’re not going to and I think everyone knows this. Whether we should is another question.

I just finished reading On The Hunt by Col. David Hunt and he had some good strategies for winning the war. Gloves off. It's a disservice to our soldiers to send them to a battle and not let them do what is necessary to win.

[_The Nehor]

It's a beautiful setup in that the war can be perpetual. There is no point where you can say you won. Even the Cold War had an ending (end of the threat or thermonuclear destruction). I don't think it was intentional but since it's fallen into people's laps they're likely to use it.....for a quite a while. I just think terrorism is here to stay.

The threat of thermonuclear destruction is very much alive and well. The thing is the cold war ended because everyone believed the threat had died with the U.S.S.R. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I’d venture to guess that a Putin led Russia is more of a threat than a Gorbechev led Soviet Union. Hell, this guy is threatening to point missiles at Europe just because we want to install a missile defense system over there. He also wants to help Iran become a nuclear power.

by the way, I get what Coffee is saying. Technically it is possible to win the war if we’re willing to kill everyone. Obviously we could kill everyone. The thing is, we’re not going to and I think everyone knows this. Whether we should is another question.

I think Putin is saber-rattling and trying to convince everyone that his nation is still a power.

Even during the Cold War the estimates of civilian casualties were no more than 20% of the U.S. population in case of a full Soviet strike. I'm with Coffee. Most people don't understand nuclear weapons at all. The Generals in charge of Desert Storm wanted to detonate some weapons high in the air to try to use the EMP effect to destroy Iraq's command and control structure. Permission was denied. Nukes are not the paragons of destruction Cold War propaganda made them out to be. Nuclear winter would require the attacker to make a conscious decision to destroy the environment in opposition to all military logic. I do think the U.S. has a horrible Civil Defense network. With small-scale improvements we could push casualties below 10%.

[_Pumplehoober]

“If anything Iraq shows why warfighting should be left to the warriors, and once a country decided to go to war, other than issuing a couple of broadly defined goals, the civilian side of the chain of command needs to have a giant glass of shut the “F” up while the military goes and does its job. If you have to go to war, then you do not use half-measures, you don't pussy foot about it. You do whatever it takes to bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible. “

War is a continuation of politics by more aggressive means. War and policy are inherently tied together in ways that were much more obvious in Clausewitz's day. War is never a singular objective and hardly ever ends with the death of the “enemy.” As such killing the “enemy” will never work. This is even recognized by the military leadership. A Pyrrhic Victory is not a victory. The answer is never as simple as “kill so-and-so.” Luckily such thinking is not prevalent amongst the senior officials within the US military.

[_JAK]

Mr. Coffee,
Misquotation on your part undermines your credibility. It’s dishonest. In addition ad hominem attack also fails to benefit you.

Mr. Coffee stated:
Yo, retard... What the “F” does Iraq have to do with the topic of discussion other than to serve as an example for why US warfighting doctrine should change into the ways I've described?

The topic as stated in this thread was “The War on Terror.”

Bombing Iraq was no attack on terror as Bush mis-lead many to believe.

Mr. Coffee stated:
Let me clue you in onsomething, shithead...

I never have been in support of OIF. I think iraq is the greatest free-range military clusterfuck since Woodrow Wilson got us involved in WWI. Iraq is a shining example of how NOT to wage a war. Personally, I think Dubya and every last one of his advisors should be brought before a General Court Marshall and tried for every damned punitive article except desertion(art. 85), and then sentanced to spend their remaining days turning big rocks into little rocks at Levenworth. The pathological desire the Bush Administration seems to have in wanting to ignore every damned thing the commanders on the ground or the commanders in the JCS have to say on how best to fight a war is staggering.

What’s “OIF”? You don’t say here, and I don’t read minds. I agree if you view the Iraq war as a failure. It’s impractical/impossible that “Dubya and every last one of his advisors should be brought before a General Court Marshall...” It cannot be done. Bush is the President.

I also agree that the Bush Administration has ignored inconvient facts. He has also made up facts to fit his bias. Both are dangerous and disastrous.

Mr. Coffee stated:
So yeah, I completely agree with you that Iraq is a giant clusterfuck. If anything Iraq shows why warfighting should be left to the warriors, and once a country decided to go to war, other than issuing a couple of broadly defined goals, the civilian side of the chain of command needs to have a giant glass of shut the “F” up while the military goes and does its job. If you have to go to war, then you do not use half-measures, you don't pussy foot about it. You do whatever it takes to bring the conflict to an end as quickly as possible.

The problem is that the President of the US is “the decider” about what the military does. The military makes no decisions. The military carries out the orders of The Commander in Chief.

The first problem was mission impossible -- find the weapons of mass destruction. There were NONE. So the military could either make up a false story or it could sheepishly return to The Commander in Chief and say: Uh -- say George, well, you see, there are NO weapons of mass destruction..

But the Bush position was “Find the weapons of mass destruction”. Failure in that whole business, Bush had to fine some other mission impossible.

Building foreign policy on lies is bad news. That’s what Bush did. And so, there was no way to “bring the conflict to an end” quickly. The US invaded on false pretense the country of Iraq. Truth is the first causality of war. (not an original quote from me)

Previously:
JAK wrote:
So what China, India, Europe, Russia, and other countries think of the US is of critical importance to our capacity to do business and to function.

Mr. Coffee:
Yes, because any of them are going to be willing to do anything to seriously piss off their largest customer?

No -- because some of those nations/countries are better able to be self-sustaining than is the US. Hence, the US needs other nations more than many of them need us. Look at our oil consumption. Look at our imports for Wal*Mart alone from China. Many Americans shop at Wal*Mart. Americans like low prices. Wal*Mart prices low. The per-capita income in many countries from which the US imports is very low. And Americans are not about to give up Wal*Mart pricing.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
So, while you may not care, the fact is that the US as a world player must care how it’s perceived by other countries.

Mr. Coffee:
If they value their economiexs, they'll sit back and make the appropriate noises, but ultimately they'll just stay out of our way like they've always done.

You mis-read the new global economics. Notice the price of gasoline in the US and what has happened to it over the past couple of years. It is the US which has the high life-style and which is dependent upon those who work for minimal wage.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
The US cannot go it alone. You imply that we could and take a naïve position.

Mr. Coffee:
Militarilly we do not need anyone else. The only thing stopping us from unleashing the full might of our military is whiney no-load assholes like you, who are more preoccupied with what other nations think then you are with your own nation's safety and well being.

Again, you are incorrect. We (Bush) attempted to get far more countries in his “coalition” than he got. And the US does need the support of other nations. It was your flawed thinking which President Bush embraced when he attempted go-it-alone in Iraq. Now, virtually no country supports the US or Bush. Most Americans don’t support Bush. So you are quite mistaken in concluding that only our military is a factor.

Terrorists have shown themselves to be far more creative than the US military in attacking not only US military, but in attacking any who appear in the slightest to stand with the US.

It is critical that the US give major consideration to what other countries think of the US. We do not exist in a vacuum as you wistfully may want.

Previously:

JAK wrote:
Just where specifically would you favor using nuclear bombs?

Mr. Coffee
First, use them in a counter-C3I role and for SEAD for softening up enemy airdefences and communications prior to landing. Then use them in a counter-infrastructure/counter-military role by hitting enemy airbases in order to destroy their ability to contest dominence of the airspace over their country.

In the first thrity minutes of the conflict we no own their skies and have blinded and deafened their military.

This is hardly “specifically”. Forget abbreviations. State specifically what you mean. I am no mind reader.

We cannot even “hit” enemy targets accurately with conventional weapons. Further, nuclear weapons are hardly needed to destroy “infrastructure.” What’s that? Roads and bridges and what? Do we know where “enemy airbases” are? If so, why have we not “hit” them with conventional weapons? In Iraq, there is no dominence by any enemy of “airspace.” There was NONE even before the invasion of Iraq. The US controlled the “airspace” over Iraq.

What history or news mis-characterization are you reading? You are mistaken. Second and more importantly, you offer nothing to justify the liability of nuclear attack. If you fail to recognize that most of the world’s nations are against the US presently, you have no idea how against the US the world’s countries would become if the US used a nuclear bomb.

Your feel superior is lacking in reality with regard to the perception the world’s countries have toward the US. Why does Iran (probably) want nuclear weapons? It wants to be a world player on the nuclear stage. And what nation used nuclear weapons twice in global history? It was the US. For those without nuclear weapons, that is a call to develop them.

As the US has attacked preemptively Iraq, it has generated worry and fear which inspires other countries to desire the capability of nuclear weapon use. Think about that, Mr. Coffee. Suppose a half-dozen other nations had nuclear weapons and the US had none. Just suppose. What would the US want to do if other nations had weapons superior to ours?

The capability of the US military inspires countries to develop the same. Hence, having and maintaining nuclear power costs the US in many ways.

To compete, other countries have taken hostage much of the US industrial strength. Once 99% of all cars (for example) in the US were made in the US. Now Toyota has taken the number one position in autos in the US.

Fighting a swarm of bees with a crowbar is counter-productive. Nuclear weapons are of little use when they cannot be used for any reason. Such is the case presently. Only the irrationally power-mad consider that use of nuclear weapons would be of short or long-term benefit.

The problem to solve is how to make the world safer. That will not be accomplished by using nuclear weapons.

Previously:

JAK wrote:
Second, what makes you think nuclear bombs would shorten conflict?

Mr. Coffee:
Two things, scale and shock value.

Due to the power of nuclear weapons, you can destroy a much larger ammount of targets using a lot less force. They're effiecent at what they do. The sheer shock value of having nuclear weapons used on you would instill a sort of strategic paralysis in the enemy force. They'll be so busy trying to understand what has just happened to them that they won't be able to offer a credible resistanse to an invasion force.

The argument was “shock and awe” for what the US did in Iraq. It produced shock and awe. It did not achieve any desired result which we were sold it would. Nuclear weapons would have made the situation even worse. They would have entirely destroyed the oil fields in Iraq. We want the oil. Nuclear weapons in Iraq would make that impossible. You apparently didn’t read the websites I provided for you regarding the effects of a nuclear exchange of global scale.

For the US to play bully to the world by attacking lesser countries with nuclear weapons would notproduce a desirable effect. The “shock value” (and it would not be value) would quickly change to a unified world of countries to destroy the US. A considerable number of countries want to do that now.. And the US is scared. Witness the hundreds of billions we are spending on home-land security since the attack of Iraq. And scared should be the government of the US. The US has made many enemies in the past 5 years -- far more than we had previously. Ample evidence supports that sad conclusion.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
How would you rehabilitate a country which would suffer countless civilian deaths and radiation disease?

Mr. Coffee:
In the same manner that we did with Japan. Something you'll notice about US military history is we have this habit of returning the land we conquer to its people and then help them rebuild.

Consider the cost in today’s economy for doing that. The world is not what it was. We cannot even help them rebuild in Iraq presently for all the destruction that has been caused by all parties to the destruction of Iraq. You misunderstand the devastating consequence of use of nuclear weapons today. You also misunderstand how use of nuclear weapons would produce development of nuclear weapons in every country that could possibly develop them should the US use them again.

Mr. Coffee continued:
As far as radiological effects go, without getting into classified information, modern devices are extremely effiecent and produce virtually no long term radiological by-products. Especially if the devices are initiated as an airburst or a subsureface delayed laydown. The only time you actually have to worry about any seriously radiological effects is with a direct contact surface laydown where the fireball can actually suck a lot of debrie into the fireball where it will be exposed to large ammounts of fast-neutron and gamma radiation.

It’s naïve to consider that such precision of control would be realistic. We cannot even hit military targets with conventional weapons without also hitting civilian targets. Nor have you given any genuine justification for a nuclear attack of any country. “Kill them all” was your position. In that case, “rehabilitation” would be irrelevant. Further, it could not be done. Kill all of whom? A most unclear position.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
The above has been well documented and admitted by the US military. With that in mind, just where would you use nuclear bombs? How would you assure that the nuclear bombs didn’t hit the wrong target?

Mr. Coffee continued:
Strategic assets that you'd use a nuclear weapon on tend to be very prominent structures, like railheads, airports, powerplants, ect. You seem to assume that one would use nuclear weapons as precision guided weapons to hit a single building, or even a room within a building (which we could with right device/delivery system). And due to the placement of many strategic targests, your counter-industrial/force/infrastructure strike is going to be inherently counter-population. So yeah, civilians are going to get glassed.

Thus, we have a confirmation of my point. Civilians in large numbers will be killed or forever harmed in ways which no amount of rehabilitation can compensate. Hence, nuclear attack is an extremely bad option.

Mr. Coffee continued:
But to answer the question...

I'd insure that they hit there targests by making sure that the devices RTD (radius of total destruction) was larger than the CEP (circular area of probability) of the delivery system.

Sorry, Coffee, you would not have that ability. You can insure nothing in war of any kind including a nuclear war. Consider the absolute assurance given us by the Bush administration on Iraq -- What the problem was, How we could succeed, How long it would take to succeed, How much it would cost, How many military people would be required. All those assurances (insurance) were WRONG..

Historically, wars are not conducted by ONE party. People attacked respond in ways not anticipated and with results not anticipated. Again the bravado: “I’d insure that they hit...” is fantasy. It cannot be done. History demonstrates that results of war are inaccurately predicted by those who wage the wars.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
And so your position is that the US is justified and benefited by killing general populations? We have done that in Iraq (without nuclear weapons).

Mr. Coffee continued:
Why not? We've done so in the past. It really wasn't until reciently that the proliferation of PGMs has seemed to make people believe that we should only hit enemy positions and never, ever kill civilians as collateral damage.

The past is not the present. In Iraq, virtually every claim made by the Bush administration has turned out to be wrong. There is greater opposition to killing innocent civilians TODAY than ever before. Why? It’s because we have daily coverage in picture and description of what’s happening to humans devastated by war. “In the past,” there was far less truth of events than today.

What is the trend in attitude toward war? The trend is that war is counter-productive. And the view that war is conter-productive is demonstrated in daily news coverage of the current Iraq war. So your notion that nuclear attack would be superior to no nuclear attack is in the past.

The condemnation of the global community for use of nuclear attack would be grave. It would unite hundreds of countries against the country which made such an attack.

Mr. Coffee continued:
It's all part of that concept of "TOTAL WAR" I mentioned. You do what ever it takes to end the conflict as rapidly as possible, there by saving the lives of your people. If that means the enemy suffers a lot of civilian casualties, oh well. Them's the breaks.

Ah, but there is no genuine agreement on what it takes. And when there is no military solution as most analysts
generally agree, military options are marginalized as reliable means to “end the conflict.”

It’s flawed conclusion that by killing more people one saves more people. And they are all people. How to resolve crisis without killing people is the challenge. Your disregard for human life by advocating nuclear bombs is a minority view. And the proposal that such action would be beneficial is not supported by thoughtful considerations.

Previously:

JAK wrote:
Donald Rumsfeld (Bush’s Secretary of Defense) said the war would be 6 weeks to 6 months -- no longer. He was wrong. The policy failed.

Mr. Coffee continued:
No doubt about that. Rumsfeld is another example of what is wrong with how we fight wars.

Lawrence B. Lindsey was forced to resign Dec. 6, 2002, and Paul O'Neill resigned on the same date. Lindsey said an attack on Iraq would cost at least $200 billion (now we are at a trillion) and O’Neill agreed. They were fired. Rumsfeld said they were wildly inaccurate and persuaded Bush (of what Bush wanted anyway) to attack preemptively Iraq. Bush would have been forced to go to Congress for use of nuclear bombs on Iraq. And Congress would never have approved it.

Rumsfeld was wrong, but a nuclear attack would have resulted in a far greater disaster than we have now. The legacy is of debt and deficit. The legacy is a civil war with no end in sight. There is not the slightest evidence that nuclear attack on Iraq would have been useful to anyone. And the evidence put forward by Powell and Rumsfeld was flawed.

We are fortunate that those who might have favored a nuclear attack were not in charge. If I were an Iranian in power, I would want nuclear weapons. Looking at the devastation in Iraq caused by the US invasion, I would want nuclear weapons.

Given the irresponsible behavior of the Bush administration, other countries have reason to fear the US.

Mr. Coffee continued:
It would have only taken six weeks to six months had Rumsfeld and Bush used the operations plans given to them by the JCS. The original plans called for an invasion force of 500,000-750,000 troops, which would have given us plenty of forces to overwelm the Iraqis while securing the areas we had taken with a garrison force large enough to crush any insurgency forces left in the wake of the main body.

Instead, Rumsfeld thought it'd be best to go in with less than 200,000 troops and make a mad dash for Bagdad, leaving vast parts of Iraq completely unsecured.

Nonsense Speculation on your part about time. Easy for you to say since we cannot replay the past 5 years. The objective as stated by Bush was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

Only later did bush change the “mission” and change it again and again.

Cheney said we will be welcomed with open arms by the Iraqis. You’re mistaken entirely about what the sequence of policy and policy shift was and has been over time.

Further, had Bush proposed “500,000 - 750,000 troops” the American people would have reject that as would have the Congress. Bush lied or was ignorant -- probably lied as he underestimated. Lindsey knew better, and he was fired. And even Lindsey was far short of what Bush has cost the US and will continue to cost the US over the next decade and longer.

Your proposal would not have had the slightest chance of being accepted at the start of the war -- not the slightest!

Previously JAK:
Had we used nuclear bombs (which you favor), the death count would be far greater.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Not really. The only strategic assets in heavily populated areas in Iraq were Saddam International Airport and a couple of bridgeheads that we needed intact for our own use.

Incorrect. Evidence is not on our side here. Most Iraqis today consider that life was better under Saddam than currently under US occupation. Countries do not like occupation. And your proposal would have been occupation with no countries in support of a nuclear attack. Not even Great Britain would have supported the US. And as it has turned out, most who gave some support have or are pulling out entirely.

It would have the the US alone under your proposal. We would have had NO SUPPORT for a nuclear attack in Iraq.

Keep in mine we were just looking for weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t exist. So the basis for the attack in the first place was entirely false. Had we used nuclear bombs only to learn the basis was false, there would not be a country in the world that would have any good regard for the US. And we need oil. The countries that supply us could cut us off. Without nuclear weapons, other countries could paralyze the US.

Mr. Coffee continued:
We could have parked a pair of W-88s dialed down to 50kt on Saddam International and hit Saddam's residence with another and only killed maybe the same ammount of less than we did with the inconcieved clusterfuck of an invasion we actually carried out.

More wishful thinking and flawed conclusion. No evidence before the fact of the attack on Iraq.

Bush and company presented a case and was believed by many in the US. He was wrong. There is no evidence that you are right. And what would have been YOUR objective? Keep in mind you only knew what Bush & company told us. They used the FBI the CIA and covert “intelligence” (which was wrong).

Previously JAK:
In addition, the entire area would have been so contaminated by radiation that the oil (the real objective of the US) could not be obtained by anyone without suffering radiation sickness and exponentially increased cancer in those who venture into areas hit by nuclear bombs (which you favor).

Mr. Coffee continued:
So you are one of those ignorant "Nuclear weapons are teh EVIL!!!L!!!1! Radiation BAD !!!11!" morons. Hate to be the one to tell you, but modern devices don't put out much seriously harmful radiological by-products. They especially don't produce much when used as an airburst, which wouldn't yopu know it, happens to be the prefered deliver method as it best enhances blast and thermal effects.

You ignore world opinion. Not the Congress and not the President would have proposed (in a democracy such as ours) what you propose. The loss of life and the television coverage of that would have placed the US in a far worse position than it is today. And the position today is bad.

Your proposal could not have been justified at the time we invaded Iraq. It’s pointless speculation.

JAK wrote quoting from source given:
In a 2-megaton explosion over a fairly large city, buildings would be vaporized, people reduced to atoms and shadows, outlying structures blown down like matchsticks and raging fires ignited.


Mr. Coffee continued:
BS. I can show you using a blast effects calculator and a demographic map of London that if you dropped a 2MT devices dead center of the city that you'd destroy less than 10% of its buildings and infrastructure and kill less than 20% of its inhabitants.

The only things that would be "vaporized" would be those that were inside the fireball (which is only an area of about 700m in diameter for a 2MT device initiated at optimum altitude). Ionizing radionation levels would drop below lethal limits at less than 1km from the initiation point. The blast wave would only destroy heavy concrete and brick structures out to 2.5km. Themeral effects would drop below being able to ignite wood or cause 2nd/3rd dregee burns at around 5km.

You show nothing. I gave sources for documentation. Since your scenario has never been tried in a real war, as a pragmatic matter, you have nothing here. You offer no evidence. Your say-so given your flawed thinking thus far is not persuasive.

In addition, it fails to address the historical development of the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq. It’s irrelevant even if you could prove it. Where’s the evidence. “I can show you” is completely unpersuasive.

Previously:
JAK wrote:
And if the bomb were exploded on the ground, an enormous crater, like those that can be seen through a telescope on the surface of the Moon, would be all that remained where midtown once had been.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Yes, if you were to initiate the device on the ground. But guess what... There are relitively few targets that require a direct surface laydown to destroy.

Irrelevant to issue of the unfolding of the invasion of Iraq and the justification set forward by the Bush administration. You seem to ignore all the mistakes the US military makes.

How many troops have been killed by friendly fire? They were mistakes. How many Iraqis have been killed by mis-directed bombs? You’re attempting to script a war in which no mistakes are made. It’s flawed thinking. Just as Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush were wrong about outcome and what was “needed,” there is every reason to believe that your paper war would not become a fact.

Historically, regardless of the weapons, wars do not go according to blue-print.

JAK wrote quoting source given:
There are now more than 50,000 nuclear weapons, more than 13,000 megatons of yield, deployed in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union -- enough to obliterate a million Hiroshimas.

Mr. Coffee continued:
BS. Maybe at the height of the cold war there were anywhere near that many devices. Today, thanks to START II and SALT, both the US and Russia are limited to 6,800 devices each, with only 2800 of them on active deployable status.

If you think you know how many nuclear weapons are currently in place, you are again delusional. The information for all countries which have nuclear weapons is so classified that you don’t know.

Mr. Coffee continued:
France, China, and the UK between them have less than 1000 devices. The indians and Pakistanis have less than 100 between them.

Israel has maybe 250 devices.

Total yield of every damned thing everyone has ius less than 5GT. Not even enough to recreate the impact event that killed the dinosaurs.

Again, delusional. You don’t know what you claim to know. Even if the figures were close, it’s irrelevant to the actual use of nuclear bombs. The probability that the actual use of nuclear bombs would go according to plan is low. We can’t even use conventional weapons without mistakes. We kill our own men. We kill innocent civilians. With confidence, the Bush administration has failed virtually every objective it projected.

You’re hallucinating if you think a nuclear war could be conducted absent mistake, miscalculation, wrong target, etc. You also don’t know what the enemy would do.

Be realistic regarding the war on Iraq. The US would never have begun that war with nuclear weapons.

JAK wrote previously:
Read the entire article written in 1982 -- Carl Sagan

Mr. Coffee continued:
Carl damned Sagan's retarded "nuclear Winter" scenario? You mean the same one where Sagan and his co-authors got laughed out of serious academic circles because of piss poor data analysis and modeling?

And your source is what? Thus far, you have given none. While 1982 is not current, you have offered nothing to support your say-so. I’ll take Sagan over you.

Mr. Coffee continued:
They used a featurless 2D model of the earth and assumed 1. way to many nuclear weapons than even existed at the time, and 2. that every last one of them would be initiated as a surface detonation, for “F”'s sake. That Nuclear Winter horse crap got shot down decades ago.

And your specific sources for evidence are zero thus far. Name-calling does nothing for your argument.

Just what respected authorities today can you cite that recommend nuclear bombs as a tool for conflict resolution?. Let’s see the consensus authorities which favor nuclear bombs.

JAK wrote:
Wrong. If you skipped the article above, read it. The best world-scientists agree with Carl Sagan regarding the reality of a nuclear winter given a large-scale nuclear war.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Ok, then name some scientists. Show me the names of credible scientists who have objectively looked over Sagan's theory of nuclear winter and actually agreed with it.

With all your wild assertions about a nuclear war, it’s you who need sources. It’s you who needs to demonstrate there are rational knowledgeable people who make the case for nuclear war. Thus far you have given none.

You can’t even quote accurately my statements. The statement: “Keep in mind that several countries now have nuclear weapons. In addition, many countries which don’t have them want them” WAS MY STATEMENT, NOT YOURS.

I gave you several sources, you have given NONE. Your claim for benefits of nuclear bombs is not established.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Yes, evidence that is over two decades out of date and have long since been discredited.

You have shown no evidence that the information has been “discredited.” Your assertion is insufficient.

JAK wrote:
Studies of ancient wildfires support Carl Sagan in his theory of Nuclear Winter. Nuclear exchange would lead to large climatic effects.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Yes, because we're goinbg to fire nuclear weapons into forrests and not at heavilly built up urban areas that would mitigate, if not completely eliminate, the threat of massive wildfires?

There are so many baseless assumptions in Sagan's theory that the on;y reason I can think of for why people evn took the man seriously was because of his name and previous reputation.

This is no refutation. It’s merely your say-so. Let’s see your evidence. Your attack of Sagan fails to benefit your case.

And your case for nuclear attack on Iraq has been supported by no one that you have named as a responsible policy maker.

JAK wrote:
Keep in mind that top scientists recognize the probability of nuclear winter as a result of a sufficient number of nuclear explosions on the planet.

Mr. Coffee continued:
Ok, then name some of them. Shop me studies that corroborate Sagan's idea instead of just regurgitating them.

I mean, for “F”'s sake, after you're retarded little diatribe on how bad ass a 2MT device is, I'm frimly convinced you don't have the first goddamned clue as to how nuclear devices work, how they are used, or what they can do.

You have presented no evidence for any of your claims. You’re in no position to make demands for anything further from me absent the first piece of evidence from you.

Your limited vocabulary, poor spelling, and general inability to address issues makes you an impecunious advocate for nuclear attacks on any country.

JAK

[Guest]

Evidence for Mr. Coffee on the dangers of nuclear war.

Nuclear materials pose a threat to those who posess them.

Nuclear Bomb Risk Revealed At Kentucky Uranium Plant

Radiation risks:

Radiation Risks

Skin Tumor Risk

“Conclusions: The basal layer of the epidermis appears to be quite sensitive to radiation carcinogenesis, particularly at a young age. The suprabasal layer seems to be more resistant, as shown by the lack of an association for squamous cell carcinomas.”


Thyroid Diseases

“Survivors who were exposed in the first or second decade of life have just entered the cancer-prone age and have so far exhibited a high relative risk in association with radiation dose.”


Risk of Nuclear Warfare Rising

“Iran is a potential member of the nuclear club if it decides to turn its uranium enrichment program to military use...”


Atomic Bomb Chronology: 1947-1979

A Study of Aftermath

“Perhaps had the United States not taken such drastic matters, the war soon would have ended on its own. Yet, despite such obliteration, at that time nuclear bomb use seemed the appropriate, viable option. It was not until afterwards, when it was too late, did the world learn of the devastating implications. And while Japan prospered soon after, negative effects of the bombs linger, effects that will never be covered despite concerted efforts. The absence of detecting a statistically significant effect of radiation on the frequency of genetically based birth defects should not be construed as evidence that mutations were not induced by parental exposure to atomic radiation. Nor should we ignore the proliferating psychological implications across the world. We have an obligation to learn from this tragedy. We must continue to understand the effects, conduct more studies, and most importantly, identify other means through which to end world conflict.”

Notice all the research. You have provided no research for your claims.


Bush Administration Wants To Build New Nuclear Bomb

“The report shows the Bush administration views a nuclear strike as "an intrinsic part" of dealing with deeply entombed enemy targets and "is essentially doing all the preparation" for a future full-scale research and development program for a new mini-nuclear warhead, said Martin Butcher, director of security programs at the Physicians for Social Responsibility.”

“This kind of warhead is "the dirtiest kind of all. It's highly radioactive," said Butcher, whose group has been a leading voice in the nuclear nonproliferation debate. Development of such a bomb would send the wrong signals and would add to the risk of nuclear proliferation, he said.”
© 2001 The Associated Press

Risk of Nuclear Warfare Rising

“The world’s top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the [b]risk of atomic warfare, a Swedish research institute said...”

Cancer Statistics

Risk of Nuclear Warfare Rising

“India, Pakistan and Israel each have dozens of warheads...”

JAK

[_barrelomonkeys]

Okay. Well you fixed it. Now I need to put something here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlcvJjRvT7c

And it somehow seems appropriate.