Has Israel got a hidden fleet of SSBN? How about Pakistan? So North Korea is wasting its time developing nuclear weapons if it doesn't have a full complement of ICBM, strategic bombers and SSBNs?
If you don't understand such simple things,why are you in this discussion?
This is why they have no deterrent.You need to be able to retaliate after the first strike.So,let's examine our subjects.
Israeli a)has no nuclear weapons(and YES,THIS IS SARCASM!) and b)if it hypothetically had them,it has subs,bombers,and,yes,possibly silos.
But it doesn't matter because Israel strikes first.So they have no need to deter anyone with hypothetical nukes.
Pakistan and North Korea have no nuclear deterrent as is.All their nuclear
forces on standby can be knocked out with acceptably powerful first strike.
And,YES,they are wasting people's time and money.
So because they don't have bombers - which no one is disputing or has even raised for that matter - the chemical attack had to be done by the rebels rather than the one actor who actually has both the means and motive to use them?
The only side with the motive to use chemical weapons(especially using old Soviet(!)rocket as a delivery system)were the rebels.
If government wanted these blocks destroyed,they had the means to do it myriad other ways.Ways that do not alienate half a world.Also,if i use chemical weapons,i would use the bomb.
Dispersion is better,you know.And accuracy.
More interesting thing than Iran's alleged nuclear weapons(Iraq had them too,didn't you know?):
Multiple airstrikes(!)against Donetsk's airfield.Usage of jets and copters confirmed.
I,honestly,do not understand.Donetsk is far beyond the front line.
What's the point?
Unconfirmed:1 Hind down.
Yes, you could knock them out with a determined first strike.
Fixed that for you.Difference is that anyone can do it.
Conventional strike would be enough to knock out delivery systems.Because,you know,their air defence is....err....nominal.
Exept for Israel.They are acceptable.
And what then?Use artillery to deliver nukes?With 10km range?
Not to mention that modern MBT can easily withstand nuclear blast,as long as it isn't too close.
i can withstand a nuclear blast long as it isn't too close*.
For MBT that definition is far better.Even T-72 could withstand kiloton-range blast from less than 1 click.
You'd want to be damn sure you got everything. And got it fast enough.
Which is why North Korea and Pakistan sucks and Israeli are awesome.
Seriously,is there even one war Pakistan won?
But there are also those who have the aspirations to not live under the Syrian regime. Would you deny them the right to that?I would deny them the right to exist.
So I guess that means the Russian Revolution should never started? What about the US War of Independence? Chairman Mao? Should have just stayed home I guess.
So I guess that means the Russian Revolution should never started?
There are people that think so,yes.
But let's,as usual,do not mistake "democratic and economic reform"with socialist revolution.What about the US War of Independence?
Not qualified to talk about it.Our Empress thought you were OK.Even trolled brits over it.But then,let's not mistake classic colonial war with what happens in Syria.
Chairman Mao?
See above for socialists.
Primary difference is "Syrian"rebels do it all wrong.
They are either murderers or fools.
Revolution is science.You need to understand what you are doing,why,and how.
Make enough mistakes and your country gets destroyed.
For literally nothing.
Actually, Gallo, you didn't provide any references at all! Just the usual mass-media fearmongering and BS. I have the IAEA's reports on my side - you have .... what, fox news? Israeli intelligence shares its memos with you maybe?
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
And if you don't like me using your forum name, Gallo, by all means change it :-)
Has Israel got a hidden fleet of SSBN? How about Pakistan? So North Korea is wasting its time developing nuclear weapons if it doesn't have a full complement of ICBM, strategic bombers and SSBNs?
If you don't understand such simple things,why are you in this discussion?
This is why they have no deterrent.You need to be able to retaliate after the first strike.
So,let's examine our subjects.
Israeli a)has no nuclear weapons(and YES,THIS IS SARCASM!) and b)if it hypothetically had them,it has subs,bombers,and,yes,possibly silos.
But it doesn't matter because Israel strikes first.So they have no need to deter anyone with hypothetical nukes.
Pakistan and North Korea have no nuclear deterrent as is.All their nuclear
forces on standby can be knocked out with acceptably powerful first strike.
And,YES,they are wasting people's time and money.
So because they don't have bombers - which no one is disputing or has even raised for that matter - the chemical attack had to be done by the rebels rather than the one actor who actually has both the means and motive to use them?
The only side with the motive to use chemical weapons(especially using old Soviet(!)rocket as a delivery system)were the rebels.
If government wanted these blocks destroyed,they had the means to do it myriad other ways.Ways that do not alienate half a world.
Also,if i use chemical weapons,i would use the bomb.
Dispersion is better,you know.And accuracy.
You have no concept of sarcasm.
As for second strike, not all potential users really give a f*&k what happens after the first nuke goes off. And if a country bases its own nuclear weapons policies purely around whether potential enemies have the capacity to drop a second round of nukes then it is not being very responsible. Not all state and non-state actors are rational.
We all know that you are omnipotent and infallible, but would even you be sure you could get all of a country' nukes in a first strike? Don't bother answering as it's a rhetorical question to which I could pretty much write your answer.
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
Dolphin-class is not a SSBN.
Because It's primary armament is not a ballistic missileBut it still has the same second strike capability against enemy in the region as a proper SSBN.
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
Dolphin-class is not a SSBN.
Because It's primary armament is not a ballistic missile
But it still has the same second strike capability against enemy in the region as a proper SSBN.
From the article: It seems possible, therefore, that the 650mm tubes might have been designed to accommodate indigenously built, long-range SLCMs. The German government has stated that it does not have information on whether Israel installed different equipment on the submarines after delivery, although former German officials have acknowledged that they assumed that Israel intended to equip the submarines with nuclear weapons.
might
Might,in my book,is not good enough.And cruise missile is no ballistic missile.Exept when it's russian,in that case it can be both.
But who cares?Israel has no enemies outside of range of popeye,right?
Actually, Gallo, you didn't provide any references at all! Just the usual mass-media fearmongering and BS. I have the IAEA's reports on my side - you have .... what, fox news? Israeli intelligence shares its memos with you maybe?
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
And if you don't like me using your forum name, Gallo, by all means change it :-)
You must be reading different IAEA reports then. Sure you have the right url? Fox News? You really have no idea about me. I'd place Vlad above Fox for reliability.
On the issue of Israel and subs, for once I am agreement with Vlad (stranger things have happened on the internet). Having a submarine with the capacity to fire SLCM does not make the sub a SSBN.
You do know the "N" in SSBN refers to the propulsion system not missile warheads? If you are going to accuse someone of being ignorant, you really should try to not end up being a complete muppet.
Actually, I am quite happy with my forum name. Where I come from if someone keeps using someone else's name they just come across as a try hard.
might
Might,in my book,is not good enough.And cruise missile is no ballistic missile.Exept when it's russian,in that case it can be both.
But who cares?Israel has no enemies outside of range of popeye,right?
I suppose "might" is all we're likely to get - unlike Iran, Israel has neither signed the NPT nor will they allow IAEA inspections. If you want to imagine that they aren't using those subs as nuclear weapons platforms, Vlad, go right ahead.
[Waits out the weapons-nerdery]
Beat 'em all into plowshares! But only after we've strangled the last monarch with the entrails of the last priest!
Vive le Galt!
If you want to imagine that they aren't using those subs as nuclear weapons platforms, Vlad, go right ahead.
Wait,what?I am pretty sure there are at least ten warheads in each sub at all time,at missiles and torpedoes.
But i just don't think they have ballistic capability.But who knows?Torpedo-launched ballistic missile is not technically impossible.Just...strange.
with the entrails of the last priest!
Again you are doing it wrong.
What's your problem with priests?)not all potential users really give a f*&k what happens after the first nuke goes off.
ALL of them.
This is why we haven't seen nukes used in anger since 1945.
Actually, Gallo, you didn't provide any references at all! Just the usual mass-media fearmongering and BS. I have the IAEA's reports on my side - you have .... what, fox news? Israeli intelligence shares its memos with you maybe?
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
And if you don't like me using your forum name, Gallo, by all means change it :-)
You must be reading different IAEA reports then. Sure you have the right url? Fox News? You really have no idea about me. I'd place Vlad above Fox for reliability.
On the issue of Israel and subs, for once I am agreement with Vlad (stranger things have happened on the internet). Having a submarine with the capacity to fire SLCM does not make the sub a SSBN.
You do know the "N" in SSBN refers to the propulsion system not missile warheads? If you are going to accuse someone of being ignorant, you really should try to not end up being a complete muppet.
Actually, I am quite happy with my forum name. Where I come from if someone keeps using someone else's name they just come across as a try hard.
Your ignorance is stunning, Gallo. You didn't read the IAEA report from last week, presumably. Or the ones leading up to it. But as an ignorant, myopic shill for Israel you're doing great! Keep it up, Gallo!
Wait,what?I am pretty sure there are at least ten warheads in each sub at all time,at missiles and torpedoes.
But i just don't think they have ballistic capability.
But who knows?Torpedo-launched ballistic missile is not technically impossible.Just...strange.
What do you mean "ballistic capability"? We both know what SLCM's are - cruise missiles - aren't those ballistic enough for you?
What do you mean "ballistic capability"? We both know what SLCM's are - cruise missiles - aren't those ballistic enough for you?
Nope.Ballistic missile is enough ballistic for me.
Primary differences are ability(or lack thereof)to intercept it.Most cruise missile have subsonic speed,and,as such,easily intercepted and destroyed by just about anything.
Even Pakistan.
They wouldn't be good enough for a deterrent in a superpower nuclear war. For Israel, whose likely enemies are close neighbors, it's quite sufficient.What do you mean "ballistic capability"? We both know what SLCM's are - cruise missiles - aren't those ballistic enough for you?Wait,what?I am pretty sure there are at least ten warheads in each sub at all time,at missiles and torpedoes.
But i just don't think they have ballistic capability.
But who knows?Torpedo-launched ballistic missile is not technically impossible.Just...strange.
Quite right. With an estimated range of 1500km, they provide more than enough range.
To be fair to the Israeli's, they really do seem poised more for a second strike scenario - using their nukes as retaliation against WMD attacks, rather than conventional warfare. They've proven quite effective at conventional warfare, though their stalemate against Hamas in 2008/9 was surprising....
Was hoping for some feedback about the Ukrainian election, yesterday. Anyone have any thoughts?
Was hoping for some feedback about the Ukrainian election, yesterday. Anyone have any thoughts?
One wise man once said"in Russia,you do not become an oligarch,you get appointed as one"
In Ukraine(and i am not even kidding,it's almost direct translation),you are get appointed as a president.
What's interesting is that under present constitution substantial amount of power still holds Timoshenko.
ATM,president is mostly...face?
Until parliament is re-elected.
Also,newly elected president will need to take flak for southeast and economic problems.
I am starting to think that Timoshenko lost intentionally.
Was hoping for some feedback about the Ukrainian election, yesterday. Anyone have any thoughts?
The Chocolate King is a pretty awesome name for an oligarch.
Also, if the headlines I'm reading are correct, French fascists and Britishiznoid Tea Partiers kicked ass in Europarliamentary elections? Great.
The Chocolate King is a pretty awesome name for an oligarch.
As a matter of fact i eating his candy right this second.
But his chocolate sucks IMO.
Yeah, I was stunned that so many right-wingers seem to have done well. But then, I keep being stunned that my own nation keeps putting right wing psychos into power.
It's especially sad to see Europe go this way. I always assumed they were more socially advanced than North Americans were - greater emphases on equality, universal healthcare, more leisure time, support for unions, etc ... but it seems I may have been mistaken.
Also, if the headlines I'm reading are correct, French fascists and Britishiznoid Tea Partiers kicked ass in Europarliamentary elections? Great.
Yeah, it's a sad sad day in Europe. My only consolation is that the party I voted for got in, somewhat surprisingly (Feminist Initiative, a swedish feminist party with a socialist bent; basically they do the same thing as the left party but are a bit less corrupt).
Your ignorance is stunning, Gallo. You didn't read the IAEA report from last week, presumably. Or the ones leading up to it. But as an ignorant, myopic shill for Israel you're doing great! Keep it up, Gallo!Actually, Gallo, you didn't provide any references at all! Just the usual mass-media fearmongering and BS. I have the IAEA's reports on my side - you have .... what, fox news? Israeli intelligence shares its memos with you maybe?
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
And if you don't like me using your forum name, Gallo, by all means change it :-)
You must be reading different IAEA reports then. Sure you have the right url? Fox News? You really have no idea about me. I'd place Vlad above Fox for reliability.
On the issue of Israel and subs, for once I am agreement with Vlad (stranger things have happened on the internet). Having a submarine with the capacity to fire SLCM does not make the sub a SSBN.
You do know the "N" in SSBN refers to the propulsion system not missile warheads? If you are going to accuse someone of being ignorant, you really should try to not end up being a complete muppet.
Actually, I am quite happy with my forum name. Where I come from if someone keeps using someone else's name they just come across as a try hard.
Wow, you're touchy.
Ignorant, myopic shill - couldn't you think of any more adjectives? You are a try hard, so maybe you should try harder....
Out of curiosity, when I have I said anything in support of Israel? Maybe you are just subconsciously displaying your own prejudices there. Happy to discuss Israel if you like (and I suspect we'd find common ground on quite a few things relating to Israel and its regional policies and actions) but I think this thread has gone far enough off topic already.
They wouldn't be good enough for a deterrent in a superpower nuclear war. For Israel, whose likely enemies are close neighbors, it's quite sufficient.What do you mean "ballistic capability"? We both know what SLCM's are - cruise missiles - aren't those ballistic enough for you?Wait,what?I am pretty sure there are at least ten warheads in each sub at all time,at missiles and torpedoes.
But i just don't think they have ballistic capability.
But who knows?Torpedo-launched ballistic missile is not technically impossible.Just...strange.Quite right. With an estimated range of 1500km, they provide more than enough range.
To be fair to the Israeli's, they really do seem poised more for a second strike scenario - using their nukes as retaliation against WMD attacks, rather than conventional warfare. They've proven quite effective at conventional warfare, though their stalemate against Hamas in 2008/9 was surprising....
Many years ago I had an ex-Rhodesian army instructor who said (and I quote not passing any judgement on either Israelis or Arabs more generally) "the only reason the f***ing Israeli Army has such a good f***ing reputation is that they have only been fighting f***ing Arab armies for 40 f***ing years".
Or in a politer translation, the Israel army has generally done well because they have have only fought against armies that have not been very good, not because they are necessarily a very good army themselves.
Yeah - that's a good point, Gallo. And Hamas was certainly feeling like they had their backs up against the wall. Desperation can be a powerful incentive to fight for your lives - just like it was for Israel back in, say, the Yom Kippur war. I may also have underestimated just how well-armed Hamas was, courtesy of their friends in Iran and Syria.
Haven't seen as much mention of this as I might have imagined. Do you have any more up to date info on this, Vlad?
|
Polish expansionism? Yeah, not a thing. You may have found a group of ten weirdos hanging out on a forum somewhere who want to create a Polish Imperium, but that does to make it real.Your feelings about it does not matter.I read about it since before there WAS forums.It's pretty real.
Polish expansionists MAY not be in power now.
Tomorrow?
In these times?There are reasons why Belarus has its military.And polish lobby doesn't exist,yes
Why can't people start asking questions?
Nobody said there is no such thing as a Polish lobby. It's America, there's an everything lobby somewhere. The thing is that even the link you posted, as if it supported your argument, says that their activities are largely limited to persuading people not to tell Polish jokes. They probably also set up Polish-American Festivals.
It is laughable to suggest that they have enough influence in either party to force the US to support Polish imperialism.
|
|
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.
You might want to read the article you quoted there, big guy. It says the exact opposite of what you claim. Gallo isn't the one speaking from ignorance.
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.You might want to read the article you quoted there, big guy. It says the exact opposite of what you claim. Gallo isn't the one speaking from ignorance.
Could you elaborate? The article clearly states that Israel does indeed have submarines, and that experts agree they are used as nuclear weapons platforms. Sure, they are diesel, not nuclear' but still....
|
|
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.You might want to read the article you quoted there, big guy. It says the exact opposite of what you claim. Gallo isn't the one speaking from ignorance.
[/QUOTES]
Could you elaborate? The article clearly states that Israel does indeed have submarines, and that experts agree they are used as nuclear weapons platforms. Sure, they are diesel, not nuclear' but still....
The Dolphin is a diesel-electric boat, an SS or an SSK if you are feeling fancy. It can certainly launch cruise missiles- SLCMs.
It is not, however, a boomer like a US or Russian Federation SSBN. it is not nuclear powered and cannot launch ICBMs (well, SLBMs). They are different things.
SLBM are the ones that can hit anywhere on Earth from pretty much any launch point and can carry multiple warheads with megaton yields. SLCM vary widely, but I've never heard a quoted range greater than 1500 miles and 300 and less is more likely. Smaller warhead, too.
That being said, I don't want to be shot at with either one.
|
|
Even Pakistan.
Again, the link you posted disagrees with YOU. The example you chose is of Pakistan invading India and being pushed back out, not of Pakistan being invaded.
If you meant to say that India was invaded, note that Pakistan claimed the troops were not theirs and they were just local partisans. Sort of like the little green men in Crimea. :)
Will you people please start reading your links before you lost them? I feel like I'm in the thread where someone keeps posting links to prove that climate change isn't real.
|
|
Was hoping for some feedback about the Ukrainian election, yesterday. Anyone have any thoughts?The Chocolate King is a pretty awesome name for an oligarch.
Also, if the headlines I'm reading are correct, French fascists and Britishiznoid Tea Partiers kicked ass in Europarliamentary elections? Great.
Yeah, what's up with that? UKIP, really?
Wait, I mean- That's right, goblin, and we're coming for you next!
|
|
It's especially sad to see Europe go this way. I always assumed they were more socially advanced than North Americans were - greater emphases on equality, universal healthcare, more leisure time, support for unions, etc ... but it seems I may have been mistaken.
Nope, they are made of people, just like the rest of us. There are some interesting studies that suggest as small, relatively homogenous communities, they are more likely to feel social policies benefit the community as a whole, rather than in America, where social policies only benefit Those People. (for whatever values of those people you choose)
And, just for your information, Israel does have SSBN's. You must have missed the memo on that one! Just another sign of your ignorance.You might want to read the article you quoted there, big guy. It says the exact opposite of what you claim. Gallo isn't the one speaking from ignorance.
[/QUOTES]
Could you elaborate? The article clearly states that Israel does indeed have submarines, and that experts agree they are used as nuclear weapons platforms. Sure, they are diesel, not nuclear' but still....
The Dolphin is a diesel-electric boat, an SS or an SSK if you are feeling fancy. It can certainly launch cruise missiles- SLCMs.
It is not, however, a boomer like a US or Russian Federation SSBN. it is not nuclear powered and cannot launch ICBMs (well, SLBMs). They are different things.
SLBM are the ones that can hit anywhere on Earth from pretty much any launch point and can carry multiple warheads with megaton yields. SLCM vary widely, but I've never heard a quoted range greater than 1500 miles and 300 and less is more likely. Smaller warhead, too.
That being said, I don't want to be shot at with either one.
I do concede that what Israel possesses are not SSBN's - my apologies to everyone (Gallo in particular) for the factual error.
Nope, they are made of people, just like the rest of us. There are some interesting studies that suggest as small, relatively homogenous communities, they are more likely to feel social policies benefit the community as a whole, rather than in America, where social policies only benefit Those People. (for whatever values of those people you choose)It's especially sad to see Europe go this way. I always assumed they were more socially advanced than North Americans were - greater emphases on equality, universal healthcare, more leisure time, support for unions, etc ... but it seems I may have been mistaken.
The problem is, many areas of Europe did have these social advances - and now they're going to give them up for...what? Look at France, for example - a nation of 60 million plus - hardly a small or homogenenous country. They had - still have - superior medical care, welfare programs, daycare, more leisure time.... things I consider social advances.
They would cast away decades of social progress - and for what? I understand there may be some rumblings about France becoming less French - that immigration, in particular Muslim immigrants - may be transforming their society in ways the mainstream doesn't care for. But to turn to what are essentially xenophobic fascists out of fear ... it just boggles my mind.
Yeah - that's a good point, Gallo. And Hamas was certainly feeling like they had their backs up against the wall. Desperation can be a powerful incentive to fight for your lives - just like it was for Israel back in, say, the Yom Kippur war. I may also have underestimated just how well-armed Hamas was, courtesy of their friends in Iran and Syria.It was also much closer to a guerilla war which is notoriously hard to win if the guerillas are entrenched and supported by the local population.
Despite surviving that conflict, Hamas would have been slaughtered in any attempt to actually invade Israel, for example.
Agreed - fighting defensively is a far different game than assault. It is interesting to note that Israel still wasn't able to prevail, despite their dominant control of the airspace and far superior stand-off range strike capabilities.
|
|
The problem is, many areas of Europe did have these social advances - and now they're going to give them up for...what? Look at France, for example - a nation of 60 million plus - hardly a small or homogenenous country. They had - still have - superior medical care, welfare programs, daycare, more leisure time.... things I consider social advances.They would cast away decades of social progress - and for what? I understand there may be some rumblings about France becoming less French - that immigration, in particular Muslim immigrants - may be transforming their society in ways the mainstream doesn't care for. But to turn to what are essentially xenophobic fascists out of fear ... it just boggles my mind.
I think it isn't quite that simple- it would be easier to deal with. People feel that with the economy doing poorly and with less surplus to go around, they can't afford to be quite as generous. Then mix in immigration, where the person you are helping who lives down the street doesn't look or think like you anymore and maybe wouldn't help you...
I'm not arguing that any of that is correct, just that it isn't as simple as Europeans suddenly hating immigrants and tearing down the social compact to get rid of them.
|
|
Agreed - fighting defensively is a far different game than assault. It is interesting to note that Israel still wasn't able to prevail, despite their dominant control of the airspace and far superior stand-off range strike capabilities.
Interesting, but not surprising, see Afghanistan vs. Russian Empire, Afghanistan vs. US, Vietnam... You can have all the Shock and Awe you want, guerrillas don't really care.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And of course to deflect blame away from those actually at fault.
Wait a second, you are trying to cast Summon Anklebiter, aren't you!
If you want to haz a sad, consider whether we can blame all of that on demagogues, or whether a good part of the sentiment is just because that's how people work.