 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
submarine, and have a couple of disposable guys dropped off in San Fransisco bay. and to detonate it manually.
although the warhead may be too heavy to move manually. And you wouldn't be able to use a crane without suspician.
an even easier solution is just to detonate the nuke inside the sub while it's surfaced  . and yes they do have diesal subs that can reach the west coast.
no missile shield can protect against that. |
This might be technically true, although who knows, but its not very practical.
The only still operational subs North Korea has that might have that range is the Romeo Class. This extremely obsolete submarine is generally believed to have a max speed of 13 knots, so it will take a very long time to to reach its destination. Since North Korea lacks maps of most of the Pacific Sea floor, it has a good chance of running into something at full speed along the way. (You can't use active sonar and have any realistic chance of being undetected.)
Going at its max speed with its weak batteries, it will have to run its engine a large portion of the time. This makes a huge amount of noise and makes the submarine very easy to detect. If nothing else, as it gets close to the West Coast for instance, US passive sonar nets are certain to pick it up. The odds of the US Navy letting it get right next to a significantly sized US city without sinking it are increadibly remote.
The time delay and lack of control once the mission is launched is also a huge drawback that makes this option not that desirable.
Trying to sneak it in a transport might be slightly more practical, although still with the last drawback, but its still not likely to work. North Korea does not trade with the US so simply sending a transport straight for North Korea to the US will likely get it intercepted by the US Coast Guard or Navy well at sea. You might take out a single ship with the nuke blast, but that's it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dissident
you're being silly now.
In most people's eyes, conventional war is considered acceptable, nuclear war is not. |
It wouldn't take much to change that. It is a fact that in the U.S., politicians do not pay a price for launching an unprovoked attack on another country. The Republicans killed millions in Southeast Asia and got re-elected. They provided extensive and open support for the dirty wars in the Central and South America in the 80s and got re-elected. About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq, and Bush got re-elected.
A majority of American voters have historically indicated that a) they do not care much about how many foreigners are killed by their government, b) they will remain loyal to their government regardless of what it does; and c) they will accept any excuse that justifies their government's actions. (and this may very well be a universal attitude rather than a specifically American trait)
The U.S. was attacked by terrorist who were mainly from Saudi Arabia and this attack was then used as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. It is highly likely that if a Muslim terrorist group exploded a nuke bomb in the U.S., a majority of the American people would support using nukes against other potential threats, like North Korea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000
time: 01:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tingkai
The Republicans killed millions in Southeast Asia and got re-elected. |
A war Democrats started, in case you forget. The Gulf of Tonkin was Johnson's doing.
quote:
About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq, and Bush got re-elected. |
I call bullshit on that number. Even the oft-quoted 100,000 figure is the absolute high end of a range of varying analyses that put the number of civilian casualties somewhere between ten and one hundred thousand, yet nobody on the left ever states the uncertainty of the figure, instead repeating it like a mantra.
Source on the 400,000, please.
quote:
The U.S. was attacked by terrorist who were mainly from Saudi Arabia and this attack was then used as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. |
Aside from the 50,000 American troops in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of containing Iraq at the behest of the UN -- you know, those "infidels in the holy land" Osama *****ed about? And are you seriously saying that the United States should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead? All those criticisms of "creating more terrorists" and "destabilizing the region" would've been heard ten-fold louder if they'd tried to do that, not to mention that not even the United Kingdom would've gone along with them. There was no case for war with the Saudi Arabian government, no decade of flaunting international sanctions and a cease-fire agreement, no history of attempting to acquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons, no starting wars with its neighbours, no use of chemical weapons on its own people, no setting oil fields aflame; all you've got on them is the shady relationships they have with al Qaida affiliates, and since the Iraq invasion and the removal of American troops, the regime has begun to crack down on those terrorist groups. Meanwhile the Iraqi people have held elections and are trying to build a better society for themselves while we sit here and tut-tut the whole thing like some moral superior *******s.
What the hell has happened to Canada? When did we become so afraid to fight for a better future and help others do the same and instead decide to keep our heads down, hope nobody wants to bother us, and thumb our noses like a bunch of juveniles at our neighbour and best friend?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861
A war Democrats started, in case you forget. The Gulf of Tonkin was Johnson's doing.
|
But it was the Republicans who started bombiing Cambodia w/o telling the American public and even after the bombings were exposed, the Republicans still won the next elections.
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861
I call bullshit on that number. Even the oft-quoted 100,000 figure is the absolute high end of a range of varying analyses that put the number of civilian casualties somewhere between ten and one hundred thousand, yet nobody on the left ever states the uncertainty of the figure, instead repeating it like a mantra.
Source on the 400,000, please.
|
My mistake, a typo. I meant to say 100,000, a middle estimate. The high range is 194,000 according to the Lancelet.
But, my point still stands regardless of whether the number of civilians killed was 10,000, 100,000 or 400,000. It was simply not an issue in the last American elections. A majority of Americans showed no concern about the number of civillians killed in a war started by their government.
How many Americans here have posted regret about the number of civilians killed? Compare that number to the number of Americans here who argue that the war was justified.
There is nothing to indicate that Americans would strongly oppose the use of nuclear weapons by their government.
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861
And are you seriously saying that the United States should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead?
|
No, I think the Americans should have focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than invading a country that had nothing to do with Bin Laden.
quote:
Originally posted by optimus2861
What the hell has happened to Canada? When did we become so afraid to fight for a better future and help others do the same and instead decide to keep our heads down, hope nobody wants to bother us, and thumb our noses like a bunch of juveniles at our neighbour and best friend? |
Are the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians better off? Are the children who have lost their parents better off?
I thank the gods that the majority of Canadians are not a bunch of demogues spouting off trying to justify an unprovoked invasion. It's all very easy for people to sit in their comfortable homes and talk about fighting for a better future, but it's a far different thing to be living in a war zone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:22
|
|
http://www.canada.com/news/national...f0-231e2358dd8d
quote:
Canadians open to missile plan
poll: 'Oppose it in practice, support it in principle'
James Cowan
National Post
February 28, 2005
The U.S. missile defence system is designed to thwart attacks from countries like North Korea. Canada has decided not to take part.
Most Canadians believe the country should help defend North America against missile attacks and cannot rely on the United States for protection, according to a National Post poll.
The new COMPAS poll suggests that while a slim majority opposes Canadian participation in the American missile defence program, public opinion remains highly unstable.
Overall, the results suggest Canadians could easily be persuaded to back the missile shield, said COMPAS president Conrad Winn.
"The Conservatives could almost certainly mobilize majority support for missile defence and make the party system a lot more competitive if they put their mind to it," he said.
"I don't think the country has firm opinions on this issue.''
The survey shows 54% oppose Canadian participation in the shield and 36% support it. But while opposing the shield itself, many respondents support the principles behind its creation.
For example, 56% said Canada should help protect North America against missiles, while 53% said it cannot be an independent country if it relies on the United States for protection.
Furthermore, 53% of those surveyed believe Canada needs to protect its cities because the country does have enemies and only 30% give credence to the argument that increased military spending will provoke others to attack Canada.
"They oppose it in practice and support it in principle," Mr. Winn said. "They oppose participation in missile defence but when you give them the arguments in favour of it, they embrace them.
"What you see here is a majority of Canadians subscribe to principles that would logically lead one to favour collaborating with the Americans on missile defence."
There is also a dwindling belief the United States would help defend Canada against an international attack, the poll suggests.
In April, 1998, 32% of respondents said they had "a lot of confidence" the Americans would protect Canada. By April, 2003, the percentage who gave the same answer fell to 19% and in the new poll, the number stands at 13%.
Only in Quebec is the opposition to missile defence unshakeable, according to the COMPAS poll. In that province, respondents reject the program by a ratio of three to one. Mr. Winn suggested Quebec has a long history of opposing military programs, dating back to the Boer War.
"What you have is a very strongly ingrained pacifist strain in Quebec and a very different opinion in the rest of the country," Mr. Winn said. He noted the survey also showed 31% of Quebecers believe Canada should not have a military, compared to 22% in the country as a whole.
A spokesman for Mr. Pettigrew declined to comment on the poll. "The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence have repeated countless times in the House that the decision would be made in Canada's best interest and they have kept their word," Sebastien Theberge said.
Opposition to the missile shield has grown nominally over the past four years. A COMPAS poll in June, 2001, showed 38% of Canadian supported missile defence and 47% opposed it.
For the latest poll, COMPAS surveyed 508 individuals across Canada on Feb. 25 and 26. The results are considered accurate within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
© National Post 2005 |
WTF is this supposed to mean?
Canadians like the principle but hate having to have anything to do with Yanks?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-02-2005 12:15
|