|
Phoenix
|
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20051121...03434-8775r.htmThis is something I've been following for a while now. Use your imagination as to the consequences if someone pulled it off. If you think "nobody would have the guts because the US would nuke them back", remember the mentality of those who are willing to die "in the name of Allah", and then think about who runs Iran right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
  I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
Kajet
|
So rether than bring this up with the people who are in charge of keeping the country safe they're posting it in a public area where ANYONE can read this? WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
   
Posts: 3330
|
Well, as long as busty babes are wearing 'conservative shirts', I'm not too worried about electronic pulse-bombing from space :]
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-11-22, 20:51 by Tabun »
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
Just paint yourself white to deflect the blast.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
So rether than bring this up with the people who are in charge of keeping the country safe they're posting it in a public area where ANYONE can read this? WTF? Actually, if you read the article a bit more carefully you'll notice it was discussed by a "special congressional commission". So yes, the authorities do know about this possibility. Public knowledge is exactly what is needed. The bad guys already know about it anyway so it's no news to them. They have for a long time now because Russia supplies them with all their nuclear tech, and the Russians certainly know how to do it, the same as the US military knows how to do this to someone else. The most effective altitude for an EMP attack is 200 miles. Unsurprisingly, Iran testfired a ballistic missile about a year ago that "exploded" (you guessed it) 200 miles up. Many "observers" considered this launch a failure because their thinking is more concerned with being a precision marksman with a missile - not using an unconventional attack where precision isn't needed. All that's needed is to park a ship off the US coast, launch a missile with a long enough range in an arc over the country, and detonate it about the right altitude. Launch more than one, and you get the idea. Combine this with sleeper cells of suicide troops scattered throughout the country, and you have one hell of a nightmare. Considering how poorly the US government responded to a hurricane, I can't begin to fathom the chaos that would ensue if something like this were to actually occur. God help us, I hope it never does, but prudence demands it at least be considered.
The question isn't if they can pull this off, it's a question of will they do it once they have the right mix of technologies and are prepared for the other part of whatever goals they have. In the case of Iran, that would be a massive, coordinated attack on Israel. That's their main goal is wiping out the Jews. They just see Israeli nukes as a problem, along with Israel's very well equipped and trained military, and the "big brother" America which tends to back them up and supply their technology. If America is out of the way, that takes Israel's only ally in the world out of the equation. The last two times anyone tried to invade Israel in force they got their asses kicked in a serious way, even in 1948 when the Israelis were ill-equipped, outgunned, outmanned, and outflanked. They won't make that mistake the third time. Iran is biding its time to make its own nukes, which is why it keeps playing the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council like a second-string fiddle. It recently said it will not allow inspections of its nuclear program, which of course they won't if they're making weapons, which everyone with a brain knows they are because they do not need nuclear power for electricity when they're sitting on one of the world's biggest oil deposits.
Now as for Korea, I'm a bit more skeptical that they would ever launch a direct attack on the US. If anything, they would work with and through the Iranians or Syrians (or both) for two reasons: First, it absolves them of any direct involvement since they did not launch the attack, and second, it allows them to strike at the US covertly through a third party, thus avoiding a direct nuclear retaliation. North Korea doesn't care if someone else gets nuked off the map so long as the US is removed from the picture, and neither Iran nor Syria is a direct threat to North Korea so they have nothing to lose by helping the Iranians and Syrians. If anyone doubts North Korea's collaboration with these nations, do you remember that massive chemical train explosion in North Korea several months ago? Here is the link to that. Some of the techs on the train (which was carrying missile components) were Syrian. Anyone with a brain can connect the dots between Syria and Iran and Korea. Both Syria and Iran are state sponsors of terrorism, both took part in the 1948 and 1967 wars with Israel - and both are buying missiles from North Korea. The Iranian Shihab-3 missile is, in effect, a Korean Nodong missile. The Shihab-4 has a range of 2,000 km (1,242.7 miles). Now imagine those missiles topped with a nuclear warhead capable of delivering an electromagnetic pulse. See the problem?
Tab: You should be concerned. Europe is also a Muslim goal. Perhaps you're not familiar with it, but Islam, according to the Koran, has a policy of dividing the world into two regions - Dar al-Islam (Lands of Islam), and the Dar al-Harb (Lands of War). Any Muslim-controlled area is part of the Lands of Islam. The rest of the world is part of the Lands of War. Ok, fine, but the next part is the catch - once a region is under Muslim control, it is always considered part of the Lands of Islam. This is a permanent condition. Infidels can temporarily take control of a region, but that region must be retaken. Not to mention that, it is the duty of all Muslims to convert, by force if necessary, Dar al-Harb into Dar al-Islam. That is the philosophy is not shared by all Muslims for certain, but it is certainly taken by the hardline extremists within Islamic circles, and they adhere to it with a fanaticism that should scare everyone into sobriety. Iran and Syria both want long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching any target in Europe, and are actively working to develop both those and nuclear weapons. This is not just a US problem.
My question is, if the US is taken out of the picture by such a sneak attack, what will the rest of the world do about it? The Middle East will be everyone's problem then for certain. The balance of power will shift drastically, which if history is any indication, will lead to utter chaos. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
Lopson
Elite
Posts: 1133
Still Going In Circles
|
The Middle East will be everyone's problem then for certain. The problem is that the Middle East already is everyone's problem. Now that they know this vulnerability, who knows what will happen. The USA and their Allies better start thinking about a solution to this problem. If the USA dies, we ALL die. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
This is all very well, but it's one thing to walk into a crowded shopping centre strapped with semtex and blow the shit out of yourself and a load of innocent bystanders, but how do you actually get close enough to the US with such a device without being detected? It's one thing having the weapons, and Iran might be able to launch attack like this on Israel at best providing their aim is true, but I would wager that such a strike on the US is a lot less likely. Europe is by no means immune to atrocities, as we've all seen in the last few years, most recently in London, but the last thing anyone needs is another leg in the so-called War On Terror. I totally agree that Israel is the key to a lot of what we're witnessing at the moment, but so is the continuing occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan (remember that?). The problem in getting Iran to step back into line is that the aforementioned War On Terror has rendered the UN ultimately irrelevant. If the US (and its allies) can tell the UN Security Council to piss off, why can't Iran?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 2005-11-23, 01:54 by scalliano »
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ever hear of cargo ships? How about oil tankers, and barges? Do you know how many of those go in and out of US coastal ports, uninspected, every single day? All they need is something big enough that they can hide a launch mechanism on disguised as whatever, and they can launch while they're still in international waters since that's a measily 200 miles off the coast. One of those mobile missile launcher trucks with sheet metal pannels stacked around it to look like a shipping container would do as a cheap and effective disguise. Naval reprisals would be a non-issue for people on suicide missions looking for 73 virgins in heaven after they get torpedoed.
As for the UN, the UN made itself irrelevent. Remember 11 years of pointless, unenforced resolutions against Iraq? Remember the "no-fly zones" where US warplanes, flying under the signed surrender treaty conditions of the 1991 Gulf War, were continuously shot at by anti-aircraft guns and SAMS in violation of the surrender conditions? Ever hear of the Oil for Food Program Scandal, where billions of dollars of oil was being illegally sold, financially benefitting France, Germany, Russia (all major opponents of the war, if you remember) as well as Kofi Annan's son, filling Saddam's coffers for him to rebuild his military while his people starved and were tortured? The UN is a problem unto itself. It is the single biggest bureaucratic failure in the history of mankind. Look around the world, tell me one conflict or humanitarian disaster the UN has ever successfully averted, and if you do manage to find one, I'm sure I could find a hundred more where there's been massacres, famines, political upheaval, and any number of things where the UN has been completely ineffective or worse, complicit. Hell, just look at Africa as a whole, and tell me where the UN has made things better there. I'm not going to say Iraq is all roses nor defend the war in this thread, that will take things way off topic. There are some serious problems there and things could certainly be better, but the UN had 11 years to deal with Saddam, they failed to enforce their own resolutions for various reasons, and won't do jack about Iran except talk, and more talk, and talk again, and make demands, and insist, and threaten to hold a conference to impose sanctions... ad infinitum. I listened to an IAEA conference regarding Iran and nuclear proliferation two years ago. It was a flipping JOKE. It was like listening to a bunch of tree-hugging hippies saying "can't we all get along" - and those are the people who are in charge of preventing nuclear proliferation? The UN put Libya as chair of the UN Human Rights Commission, and during 2003 (prior to the war), put Iraq on the chair for it's Conference on Disarmament! What sick twisted thinking is that? Considering who runs the UN, and who composes the majority of its members, and some of the countries on the security council, I don't see the UN being effective in much of anything except being a clearing house for corruption, and a place for tin-pot dictatorships to bash, rail, and deal behind the scenes when nobody's looking. I will never put my faith in the UN to do anything except prolong and exacerbate existing problems. Until that changes, the UN will deserve nothing but my utter contempt.
Back to the Islamic extremists, this is where the world is failing. You don't try to understand someone when they have a gun to your head, you act to stop them from pulling the trigger. Understanding them before it gets to that point so you can prevent the showdown (or else pre-empt it) is the wiser course of action. That's what I'm advocating. Know your enemy, and be prepared. Nobody seems to be doing this.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
|
shambler
|
I got to agree with the bird.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Tabun
Pixel Procrastinator
Team Member
Elite (3k+)
Posts: 3330
|
This is not just a US problem. Apart from my comment being tongue-in-cheek, and mostly in response to the absurde ad I saw on that website, I did not even think in terms of Europe vs. America. As far as terrorism and American foreign policy go, we're dealing with a global problem. Even so, I'm not worried so much about the terrorism itself, but all the more by the average reaction to it: many people are willing to do or accept horrid things by their (irrational) fears. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
| Tabun |
?Morituri Nolumus Mori? |
| |
|
|
|
|
Woodsman
|
The problem in getting Iran to step back into line is that the aforementioned War On Terror has rendered the UN ultimately irrelevant. If the US (and its allies) can tell the UN Security Council to piss off, why can't Iran? The UN was never really relevant to be begin with. Ive always found it funny when people refer to "international law" because laws without the means to enforce them are just empty words. Yeah sure the UN has been known to send in thousands of their incompetent blue beret wearing peace keepers but they really have never done any good and in some cases actually made things worse ( sierra leon for example). I really dont think the UN would even exist anymore if the euro/arab alliance didnt use it as a forum to stick it to Israel . Maybe if the UN had the stones to enforce its meaningless rulings id have more respect for it but as it stands now i dont recognize the UN as having any authority at all. Also the idea of giving control of the internet over to the UN is a terrible terrible idea. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
Also the idea of giving control of the internet over to the UN is a terrible terrible idea. Give that man a double!!  Pho: I wasn't expecting you to start justifying the war in Iraq, what I was getting at was that there is only so much shooty-shooty that the "Coalition Of The Willing" as it has come to be known can do before something MAJORLY backfires. They've already laid waste to Iraq and they've pretty much left Afghanistan half-finished. Obviously the matter of the "Islamic Inquisition" can't be ignored, but what do you do? Blow the shit out of them first? That's only gonna strengthen their resolve. Next thing you know you've got more resentment and more acts of terrorism on your hands than you would have had otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
|
Phoenix
|
Ahh Tab, sometimes when I get in my "serious" mode I forget how humor works. Sorry about that. I do agree that liberty should not be sacrificed for security. You lose everything worth fighting for once you do that.
Scal: Yes, but the alternative is to do nothing or worse, negotiate with those who just flat out want you dead. Vigilance is what's needed, as well as sense to know when to fight, and when not to. The problem is that everyone's on a different page around the world. Afghanistan and Iraq must be seen through now that we're there, otherwise it will become worse than if Saddam were left in charge. You can't just cut your losses and pull out, like some weak-kneed US Senators - Republican and Democrat alike - are suggesting. It's an ugly situation, and the only course of action is to dig in and see it through until Iraq and Afghanistan are stabilized, if that can happen at that point. What's needed is for someone to kill Al-Zarqawi. He's taken over where Osama Bin Laden left off. That I think, more than anything else, will turn the tide in this war. His family and all of Jordan have already disowned him in response to his attack on that hotel. Hopefully his end will come soon, and some real positive steps to ending the constant bombing attacks will be made.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
|
|
|
scalliano
Elite
Posts: 1095
Yup, that's me
|
Afghanistan and Iraq must be seen through now that we're there, otherwise it will become worse than if Saddam were left in charge. You can't just cut your losses and pull out, like some weak-kneed US Senators - Republican and Democrat alike - are suggesting. Absolutely. While I was personally opposed to the invasion in the first place, I do concede that to pull out without resolution would surely result in civil war. That's what I was getting at with regards to Afghanistan being half-finished, as in the great scheme of things it appears to have been forgotten. I reckon though that Al-Zarqawi's cronies will not go quietly, even if he is taken out or caught. That remains to be seen, though. In the meantime, be afraid, be very afraid. And keep buying stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
PSN ID: scalliano
The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
|
|
|
|
