|
Fried Chicken posted:F-16 has a range of 3200+ km dude. Honest question without snark: does that take weight of ordinance into account?
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
Israel's got hella SLCMs (say it: slick-ems!) that could hit without setting off the Bad poo poo Happening alarms but they won't get down far enough to hit the buried facilities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:I don't know where to put this but since Netanyahu is stirring poo poo with conservatives this week can someone explain a tiny little thing to me? There are several parts to this answer. Most simply and directly, if Iran gets the bomb they get to join a rather exclusive club. This means national power and prestige and further entrenches them as a regional power. Israel and the U.S. don't like Iran so neither country likes the idea of them doing something cool, like successfully building nuclear weapons. And, if Iran gets nuclear weapons then it's understood that their regional rival Saudi Arabia will also decide to get them, so as to have an independent deterrent. So if you don't like arms races that's bad. Plus, Iran is not a failed state now but it's still possible for it to become one in the future, and a failed state with nuclear arms is bad bad bad bad bad. There's also a concern that Iran's nuclear arms, or at least nuclear material, could fall into the wrong hands, either intentionally (only slightly less suicidal than an outright strike) or through a command breakdown or subversion of military control at a lower level. The same concerns here exist for Pakistan, incidentally. Consider that Iran's strategy for protecting its nuclear forces from a surprise first strike will probably mirror Pakistan's: put the weapons on trucks or trains and keep them moving around a lot. This helps guard against a counterforce attack, but it means that for at least part of the time your warheads are only guarded by however many people you assign to the convoy... and you're trying to disguise them so you didn't bring a huge number. A couple of sympathetic officers, or a well-planned surprise attack, and a third party acquires nuclear bombs. The point of it all is basically that while nobody who knows what they're talking about really thinks Iran will try to nuke Israel if they get the bomb, there are a bunch of other things that a nuclear Iran will or could mean that the U.S. and Israel don't want.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
Three Olives posted:That I agree with, which is what I thought we were talking about but it seems like this whole debate is around Netanyahu, ostensibly a serious world leader, actually believes Iran would nuke Israel. That is absurd, can we not have the serious discussion of nuclear proliferation politics without entertaining this non-sense. Either Netanyahu actually believes this against all reason and as such shouldn't be taken seriously or he is playing some insane farce based on everyone else being idiots, neither is helpful. I mean, if that's your question then yeah Netanyahu's grandstanding here to drum up support. He just has to bet that the right people are idiots so he can get what he wants.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
When it comes to insurance across state lines, doesn't Obama have an instant argument for keeping that limit? State's rights?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
I was gonna say wouldn't a billion emails be like too heavy for the floor
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Usually mentors are successful role models in the specific role one is seeking to adopt. Well, there's no problem there, but something tells me Florida's bid to host the Winter Olympics might run into some issues even Mitt can't help with.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Old James posted:Highwaymen are successful because the driver is willing to stop and let them take the goods in exchange for not getting killed. An autonomous driving truck has no incentive to stop, and if it detects someone is trying to unload cargo while it is in motion the truck can take a detour to the nearest police station. But as a perfect machine it's programmed to avoid accidents. I get in front of it, my buddy goes alongside, and we play the world's safest game of chicken--we run it right off the road! Then we hop out of our trucks, bust the sucker open, and grab what we want. It's basically a victimless crime.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
site posted:They do read it in other ways, but other parts of the constitution reference militia as a specific entity if I remember correctly, as do the Federalist papers. The law, though not the Constitution, defines the militia as being made up of two parts: the organized militia (the national guard) and the unorganized militia (any male citizen between 17-45 who isn't in the military). The amendment reads awkwardly to us now, but at the time it was understood to mean that any man could buy and own... well, any weapon, really, since it was understood that many men of the time were members of their locally organized, self-regulating militia. You could have a cannon if you wanted! The original intent of the Founders is a silly thing to base modern laws on.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah man that sounds well regulated to me. In the way we understand those words now, or in the way they were understood in 1789?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No I'm afraid there is no way the phrase "well regulated militia" can reasonably be construed to mean "all the young and middle aged men in the country". Sorry. Well, far be it from me to accuse the founding fathers of being unreasonable men.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The founders also thought "a black person" could reasonably be construed to mean "3/5ths of a white person" so confusion about who's doing the regulating in the phrase "well-regulated militia" is like missing the slave-raping forest for the trees, frankly.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Children don't vote. Sometimes I wonder what I'm gonna do...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
His Purple Majesty posted:Why dont we just support the Green Party? They seem to have pretty good policy and they aren't ran by craven lunatics There are situations where I vote Green, but I'm not generally comfortable being an ideological backer of an anti-science party.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Nah, my accelerationism says we should stop fleeing death and accept that humans deserve to be extinct. The American Experiment assumes things about human nature that have been proven to be untrue. "America doesn't work, therefore humanity is over"--yep, that sounds reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Oh poo poo fishmech noticed someone was technically wrong about an insignificant point. See y'all in 5 pages. I actually love Fishmech posts; they're like a refreshing vision into a mirror universe where caring about what's actually correct instead of what everyone has agreed is correct is the way adults behave and not petulant children.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 12:12
|
|
|
How much time do you think primary campaign managers spend looking at an issue thinking, "okay, where's the middle ground here between keeping the base happy and not giving the other guys a solid-gold soundbite to use in the general?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:On 9/11 I was this militia guard: I have a confession I gotta make: after 9/11 I completely bought the idea that this was real.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 15:55 |
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:Anyone who bought the idea that terrorists in the loving afghan mountains had 1150 ft deep fortresses had to be loving mentally deficient. 115 floors down into the mountain? We might as well just give up now jfc All I knew at that point was that some guys I'd never heard of from some country I couldn't find on a map had just holy poo poo knocked down the Twin Towers, I think if you told me Bin Laden had psychic powers I would have believed you.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 07:33
|
|