Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Obama has drunk the Kool-aid - Page 7







Post#151 at 10-06-2014 11:55 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-06-2014, 11:55 PM #151
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
Do you think he would have used them if we didn't have them at the time? Do you think we would've used them on Japan if Japan had them at the time?
Clearly, the American authorities including FDR thought Hitler would use them if he got them. So we had to get it first.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#152 at 10-07-2014 01:09 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
10-07-2014, 01:09 AM #152
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Clearly, the American authorities including FDR thought Hitler would use them if he got them. So we had to get it first.
The Germans had already been taken out, and just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it. I've owned a great many things I've never used. There wasn't much, if any, advantage to ruthlessly slaughtering civilians. It's yet another little life lesson Boomers have failed to learn.







Post#153 at 10-07-2014 02:10 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-07-2014, 02:10 AM #153
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
The Germans had already been taken out, and just because you have it doesn't mean you have to use it. I've owned a great many things I've never used. There wasn't much, if any, advantage to ruthlessly slaughtering civilians. It's yet another little life lesson Boomers have failed to learn.
What do Boomers have to do with this?

We didn't drop bombs on the Japanese, and we didn't start the war in Vietnam; we stopped it. But some Boomers didn't learn, like George W. Bush. He was a red boomer, IOW a boomer in name only, or by birthyear only.

The authorities of the early 1940s disagreed with you. They thought, Hitler was trying to get it, so we'd better get it. It's that simple. Just because you owned a great many things you've never used, does not mean Hitler would not have. Are you comparing yourself to Hitler?

I think if the IS had nuclear weapons, they would use them. They are as insane as Hitler.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-07-2014 at 02:13 AM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#154 at 10-07-2014 05:50 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-07-2014, 05:50 AM #154
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
Do you think he would have used them if we didn't have them at the time?
If he had nukes and none of the allies had them, yes. We did after all.

Do you think we would've used them on Japan if Japan had them at the time?
No.







Post#155 at 10-07-2014 06:00 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-07-2014, 06:00 AM #155
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by radind View Post
Hitler was surely evil. And there was evil in the USSR. When the USA and USSR were the two superpowers, there was stability with two sane powers.

However, I do question the sanity of Hitler based on his invasion of Russia and needless sacrifice of his military by overruling the advice of senior military leaders.
So Napoleon was insane too? And Churchill (for Gallipoli)? Making a mistake, even a bad one does not constitute insanity. Bush invaded Iraq, was he insane?

In any case,my concern is that an evil and insane person gains control of nuclear weapons.
The leaders do not personally launch the nukes, their subordinates do. Dictators do not have legitimacy. A dictator only gets to dictate as long as his subordinates judge his rule to be in their best interests. There is more threat from an insane legitimately-elected leader, but I question how an insane person would get elected and stay in office until launch.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-07-2014 at 06:54 AM.







Post#156 at 10-07-2014 06:26 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-07-2014, 06:26 AM #156
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
And then a few months later the USSR staged a full invasion.
Like we did in Vietnam.

The USA giving help that is requested by local powers
As were the Soviets

No, they are Shia parties from Iraq. They were banned under Saddam, but the people who made these parties after Saddam came from Iraq, not Iran.
Yes, but there were based in Iran for many years and were supported by the Iranians like Hezbollah in Lebanon.

They are doing this to their own people.
No they are not. They are targeting people who do not subscribe to their particular brand of orthodox Sunni Islam. How do you think they could control so much Sunni territory if they did not have the support of tribal leaders? And how long would that support last if they were massacring members of those Sunni tribes? ISIS has less support in the non-Sunni areas, and they have not been able to penetrate into these regions for long.

Yes, it is insane because the victims have done nothing wrong and are no threat to them. It's pathological. Even barbarians are more sane because they do this to gain territory and spoils and wipe out their enemies.
Seems to me that ISIS has gained territory and have wiped out a lot of their opposition. And yes barbarians have a rep as bloodthirsty warriors, like the Great Heathen Army and their leader Ivar:

Quote Originally Posted by Abbo of Fluery
"King Edmund, against whom Ivar advanced, stood inside his hall, and mindful of the Saviour, threw out his weapons. He wanted to match the example of Christ, who forbade Peter to win the cruel Jews with weapons. Lo! the impious one then bound Edmund and insulted him ignominiously, and beat him with rods, and afterwards led the devout king to a firm living tree, and tied him there with strong bonds, and beat him with whips. In between the whip lashes, Edmund called out with true belief in the Saviour Christ. Because of his belief, because he called to Christ to aid him, the heathens became furiously angry. They then shot spears at him, as if it was a game, until he was entirely covered with their missiles, like the bristles of a hedgehog (just like St. Sebastian was).

When Ivar the impious pirate saw that the noble king would not forsake Christ, but with resolute faith called after Him, he ordered Edmund beheaded, and the heathens did so. While Edmund still called out to Christ, the heathen dragged the holy man to his death, and with one stroke struck off his head, and his soul journeyed happily to Christ."
Did Ivar have Edmund killed in this way? Who knows? But the story has stuck, and it gave Ivar and his brother Ubba fearsome reputations. A fearsome reputation is a useful thing, as Genghis Khan found. The Mongols engaged in routine genocide to those who opposed them. It was effective, as they carved out the largest land empire in history.

The IS caliphate is doing this merely because they are not converting to their insane, illegitimate version of Islam. Are they the only insane folks who have ever existed? No, but insane they are.
Standard operating procedure at one time. Before the rise of the Western form of government Europe consisted of what we today would call failed states, like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and now Syria. And the great empires that co-existed and preceded this period were also brutal by modern standards:
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-07-2014 at 06:56 AM.







Post#157 at 10-07-2014 06:59 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
10-07-2014, 06:59 AM #157
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Facinating article with a historical review of the region now being stirred up by ISIL

Turkey, the Kurds and Iraq: The Prize and Peril of Kirkuk | Stratfor
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/turke...#axzz3FOXSrneP

…"The Turkish Dilemma
The modern Turkish government is looking at Iraq and Syria in a way similar to how Damat Ferid did almost a century ago when he sought in Paris to maintain Turkish sovereignty over the region. From Ankara's point of view, the extension of a Turkish sphere of influence into neighboring Muslim lands is the antidote to weakening Iraqi and Syrian states. Even if Turkey no longer has direct control over these lands, it hopes to at least indirectly re-establish its will through select partners, whether a group of moderate Islamist forces in Syria or, in northern Iraq, a combination of Turkmen and Sunni factions, along with a Kurdish faction such as Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic Party. The United States may currently be focused on the Islamic State, but Turkey is looking years ahead at the mess that will likely remain. This is why Turkey is placing conditions on its involvement in the battle against the Islamic State: It is trying to convince the United States and its Sunni Arab coalition partners that it will inevitably be the power administering this region. Therefore, according to Ankara, all players must conform to its priorities, beginning with replacing Syria's Iran-backed Alawite government with a Sunni administration that will look first to Ankara for guidance.

However, the Turkish vision of the region simply does not fit the current reality and is earning Ankara more rebuke than respect from its neighbors and the West. The Kurds, in particular, will continue to form the Achilles' heel of Turkish policymaking.”...







Post#158 at 10-07-2014 09:41 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
10-07-2014, 09:41 AM #158
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
What do Boomers have to do with this?

We didn't drop bombs on the Japanese, and we didn't start the war in Vietnam; we stopped it. But some Boomers didn't learn, like George W. Bush. He was a red boomer, IOW a boomer in name only, or by birthyear only.

The authorities of the early 1940s disagreed with you. They thought, Hitler was trying to get it, so we'd better get it. It's that simple. Just because you owned a great many things you've never used, does not mean Hitler would not have. Are you comparing yourself to Hitler?

I think if the IS had nuclear weapons, they would use them. They are as insane as Hitler.
Boomers didn't drop the Atomic bombs on Japan, but man, they spend a lot of time justifying it. They didn't declare war in Vietnam, because they don't feel the need to declare war, they'll just indiscriminately bomb whoever.

This practice if total intellectual failure stems from the inability to distinguish the difference between would and could. ISIS might use nuclear weapons if they could get their hands on them, but they don't have them, so it's an irrelevant discussion.

Kinda like discussing what Hitler would have done with nuclear weapons if he had them. Hitler was dead by the time that we actually dropped the bomb, so we didn't drop it to show Hitler what for. We dropped it because we were ignorant children playing with something we didn't fully understand. Now pretty much everyone understands, and more or less anyone powerful enough to maintain a government, which is the power level you need to launch an atomic bomb won't fire one, mostly due to conscience, but also due to fear of inevitable and immediate retaliation.

ISIS isn't going to bomb anyone, they don't have nuclear weapons, thus making the entire train of thought irrelevant.

Hitler want going to bomb us after Hiroshima, he was dead, thus making the notion irrelevant.

Al Qaeda was never going to bomb us, they were never a government and thus don't have the infrastructure to make a nuclear device.

Would if they could isn't justification for bombing people or determining that someone is a threat. It'd be the same thing as police arresting a quadriplegic because he would have assaulted them if he could. You can always tell a Boomer in power because of the combination of stench: failure and that smell of where logic and intellect went to die at the hands of an emotional tantrum.

Our conflict with ISIS is no different. We're killing people who are no threat to us because of what we think they'd do if they could do anything they wanted. They never could, so it's not even worth entertaining. Boomers are dying to have some big bad out their that they can prove they were as good as their parents. There isn't one.







Post#159 at 10-07-2014 09:53 AM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
10-07-2014, 09:53 AM #159
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
So Napoleon was insane too? And Churchill (for Gallipoli)? Making a mistake, even a bad one does not constitute insanity. Bush invaded Iraq, was he insane?


The leaders do not personally launch the nukes, their subordinates do. Dictators do not have legitimacy. A dictator only gets to dictate as long as his subordinates judge his rule to be in their best interests. There is more threat from an insane legitimately-elected leader, but I question how an insane person would get elected and stay in office until launch.
Hitler was 'elected' ( sort of) and Hitler was very dangerous. With nuclear weapons , someone like Hitler would be a catastrophe.
You have a good point about Napoleon. He was maybe guilty of extreme hubris. Hitler had both the example of Napoleon in Russia and later the advice of his senior military. However , I am not aware of Napoleon creating death camps to murder a race of people. I still do not put Napoleon is same evil class as Hitler. Hitler was in a different class - insane may not be the correct term( perhaps some form of irrationality).
Bush made irrational decision to invade and occupy Iraq, in defiance of all history in the region.

Who pushes the button is not relevant to me. The issue is who makes the decision , whether this is Bush , or Hitler, or Reagan , or Obama , or whoever.
Whether a dictator is legitimate or not would make little difference if one were attacked with nuclear weapons.
Last edited by radind; 10-07-2014 at 02:19 PM.







Post#160 at 10-07-2014 01:12 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-07-2014, 01:12 PM #160
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
Well we should break those ties then.

Nothing personal, just business - like we did to Ngo Dinh Diem?
Same rules for Israel then?
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#161 at 10-07-2014 01:29 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-07-2014, 01:29 PM #161
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er View Post
Do you think he would have used them if we didn't have them at the time?
If he had nukes and none of the allies had them, yes. We did after all.
I agree. He had a delivery capability in the V2, even after his Air Force was decimated

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert ...
Quote Originally Posted by Classic-X'er ...
Do you think we would've used them on Japan if Japan had them at the time?
No.
Here I disagree. The Japanese had no possible way to deliver a nuke anywhere by war's end, so there was no possible threat of retaliation.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#162 at 10-07-2014 01:43 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-07-2014, 01:43 PM #162
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
... ISIS isn't going to bomb anyone, they don't have nuclear weapons, thus making the entire train of thought irrelevant.

... Al Qaeda was never going to bomb us, they were never a government and thus don't have the infrastructure to make a nuclear device.

Would if they could isn't justification for bombing people or determining that someone is a threat. It'd be the same thing as police arresting a quadriplegic because he would have assaulted them if he could. You can always tell a Boomer in power because of the combination of stench: failure and that smell of where logic and intellect went to die at the hands of an emotional tantrum.

Our conflict with ISIS is no different. We're killing people who are no threat to us because of what we think they'd do if they could do anything they wanted. They never could, so it's not even worth entertaining. Boomers are dying to have some big bad out their that they can prove they were as good as their parents. There isn't one.
Just to correct a few gross errors: al Qaeda and, presumably ISIS, would love to explode a nuclear device, even a dirty bomb would do. Getting one is far from impossible, since control of the things in place like Pakistan is iffy at best. Even the Russians are pretty spotty on nuclear security ... as are we, lately.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#163 at 10-07-2014 03:28 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-07-2014, 03:28 PM #163
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Boomers didn't drop the Atomic bombs on Japan, but man, they spend a lot of time justifying it. They didn't declare war in Vietnam, because they don't feel the need to declare war, they'll just indiscriminately bomb whoever.
Boomers had little to do with any of this. As usual you lump all generations that came before you together and call them "Boomers." No, Boomers were the soldiers, not the warmakers in Vietnam. No, they don't justify the bomb on Japan any more than anyone else. Where do you get this kind of statement? Prove it. Show stats that show that boomers believe the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified more than other generations do.

This practice if total intellectual failure stems from the inability to distinguish the difference between would and could. ISIS might use nuclear weapons if they could get their hands on them, but they don't have them, so it's an irrelevant discussion.

Kinda like discussing what Hitler would have done with nuclear weapons if he had them. Hitler was dead by the time that we actually dropped the bomb, so we didn't drop it to show Hitler what for. We dropped it because we were ignorant children playing with something we didn't fully understand. Now pretty much everyone understands, and more or less anyone powerful enough to maintain a government, which is the power level you need to launch an atomic bomb won't fire one, mostly due to conscience, but also due to fear of inevitable and immediate retaliation.

ISIS isn't going to bomb anyone, they don't have nuclear weapons, thus making the entire train of thought irrelevant.
Hitler wasn't going to bomb us after Hiroshima, he was dead, thus making the notion irrelevant.
I'm not sure why we are discussing this. The IS is bad enough, nuc or no nucs, that it has to be dealt with, and the USA is wise to help. I don't agree though. The IS could get nuclear weapons, just like they got other weapons. If FDR hadn't developed nuclear weapons, Hitler might have, so FDR thought, and Hitler certainly would have used them if he could have and thus won the war. And we'd all be speaking German today! And worshipping Hitler and his way of thought and life. Fortunately yes, he was defeated before he succeeded in developing nuclear weapons, but in 1941 we didn't know that. The USA had little choice but to develop them. Now the IS militants are potentially suicidal maniacs; they might use them if they get them. But they probably won't get them.

Al Qaeda was never going to bomb us, they were never a government and thus don't have the infrastructure to make a nuclear device.
Al Queda did bomb us in their way, on 9-11. They could get their hands on a nuc. But now they have a state too, with the potential to develop the infrastructure needed to deliver one too. They'd have no hesitation to drop it on the infidels whose heads they are now chopping off.

Would if they could isn't justification for bombing people or determining that someone is a threat. It'd be the same thing as police arresting a quadriplegic because he would have assaulted them if he could. You can always tell a Boomer in power because of the combination of stench: failure and that smell of where logic and intellect went to die at the hands of an emotional tantrum.

Our conflict with ISIS is no different. We're killing people who are no threat to us because of what we think they'd do if they could do anything they wanted. They never could, so it's not even worth entertaining. Boomers are dying to have some big bad out their that they can prove they were as good as their parents. There isn't one.
They are a threat, I think. They are invading and attacking countries and people in the region. They would be a perfect haven for terrorists like those who carried out 9-11. I don't think this is a Boomer idea; people support what the USA is doing now across the generations. It's a Silent, Boomer, Xer and Millennial idea. Calling it a Boomer project to prove themselves is the kind of nonsense that probably only you could come up with. But if that's the attitude you want, be my guest. Have your fun; stoke your resentments, your own Xer "emotional tantrum." I'll credit you when you make sense too.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#164 at 10-07-2014 03:46 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
10-07-2014, 03:46 PM #164
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
Like we did in Vietnam.
Right.
As were the Soviets
No, the Soviets invaded. Under Obama, no we aren't invading, we are giving requested help to the locals.
Yes, but there were based in Iran for many years and were supported by the Iranians like Hezbollah in Lebanon.
I don't think so; I think they developed locally from the already-existing rivalry in Iraq between Sunni and Shia, and the resentment against Sunni domination under Saddam Hussein.
No they are not. They are targeting people who do not subscribe to their particular brand of orthodox Sunni Islam. How do you think they could control so much Sunni territory if they did not have the support of tribal leaders? And how long would that support last if they were massacring members of those Sunni tribes? ISIS has less support in the non-Sunni areas, and they have not been able to penetrate into these regions for long.
From what I hear they are killing Sunnis too. The Sunni tribes supported the IS initially as help against Malaki. Now they are turning against the IS.

[LEFT]Seems to me that ISIS has gained territory and have wiped out a lot of their opposition. And yes barbarians have a rep as bloodthirsty warriors, like the Great Heathen Army and their leader Ivar:

Did Ivar have Edmund killed in this way? Who knows? But the story has stuck, and it gave Ivar and his brother Ubba fearsome reputations. A fearsome reputation is a useful thing, as Genghis Khan found. The Mongols engaged in routine genocide to those who opposed them. It was effective, as they carved out the largest land empire in history.
The IS is killing people whether they opposed them or not. They kill everyone who does not submit to their distorted brand of Islam, including Sunnis. And even saying the IS are barbarians is no compliment. Do we want our world to revert to barbarism?

Standard operating procedure at one time. Before the rise of the Western form of government Europe consisted of what we today would call failed states, like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, and now Syria. And the great empires that co-existed and preceded this period were also brutal by modern standards
I'm not so sure. The Western form of government we know today has arisen in the 19th and 20th centuries, since the Revolution began. Before this, we had dynastic states, and a war between them was usually an affair limited to professionals, although there were brutal episodes like the 30 Years War. But these weren't failed states; they functioned as well as could be expected for aristocratic monarchies. Before that you had Medieval times, the Age of Faith; a bewildering combo of rising small dynasties, small wars between petty kings and local lords, local religious authority, papal authority, religious empires, periodic barbarian invasions, and a few brutal empires like Genghis Khan's left over from the previous age of empires that basically ended with the fall of Rome (and the Mongol Empire was mostly Asian, not European; not "Western"). In Medieval times, "states" didn't exist yet, they were in the process of developing. There were no states yet to "fail."
Last edited by Eric the Green; 10-07-2014 at 03:55 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#165 at 10-07-2014 03:49 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-07-2014, 03:49 PM #165
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
The Japanese had no possible way to deliver a nuke anywhere by war's end, so there was no possible threat of retaliation.
I don't think the question was intended to be about technical capability. I interpreted having nukes as having deliverable nukes, otherwise the question was trivial.







Post#166 at 10-07-2014 04:11 PM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-07-2014, 04:11 PM #166
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
From what I hear they are killing Sunnis too. The Sunni tribes supported the IS initially as help against Malaki. Now they are turning against the IS.
If that is true then ISIS will b destroyed in the next few weeks. I don't think that is going to happen.

And even saying the IS are barbarians is no compliment. Do we want our world to revert to barbarism?
Who said it was a compliment? I am questioning the assumption, common amongst progressives, that anyone who opposes the liberal democratic Western order is crazy.

I'm not so sure. The Western form of government we know today has arisen in the 19th and 20th centuries, since the Revolution began.
That's democratic government. Before that Western states governments, just not a democratic ones. But before the late 12th century Western states did not have governments at all. The King was simply the warlord with the royal bloodline. In Germany the emperor was elected by the warlords. In France the king controlled only a small portion of the country. Government still existed in the Byzantine and Arabian empires.







Post#167 at 10-07-2014 04:20 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-07-2014, 04:20 PM #167
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I don't think the question was intended to be about technical capability. I interpreted having nukes as having deliverable nukes, otherwise the question was trivial.
Good point. It does point to the difference between the two theaters, though. We knew that Germany was determined to get nukes, and suspected that they had the wherewithal to deliver them. That was the motivation to attach the Vemork heavy water plant in Norway, and destroy their ability to make U235. I don't think that was ever a concern in the Pacific.

Trivia: all of the commandos involved in the raid to destroy the heavy water plant survived the raid, and most lived long lives. One is still alive at 95: Joachim Rønneberg
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#168 at 10-07-2014 07:22 PM by radind [at Alabama joined Sep 2009 #posts 1,595]
---
10-07-2014, 07:22 PM #168
Join Date
Sep 2009
Location
Alabama
Posts
1,595

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Good point. It does point to the difference between the two theaters, though. We knew that Germany was determined to get nukes, and suspected that they had the wherewithal to deliver them. That was the motivation to attach the Vemork heavy water plant in Norway, and destroy their ability to make U235. I don't think that was ever a concern in the Pacific.

Trivia: all of the commandos involved in the raid to destroy the heavy water plant survived the raid, and most lived long lives. One is still alive at 95: Joachim Rønneberg
More trivia:
I saw an article recently( can’t recall where).
-Something about Japan having good grasp of the difficulty in building a bomb and assessing the US with only one atomic bomb to use.

Asian Journal of Physics Vol 23, Nos 1&2 (2014) 1-20
From the Dawn of Nuclear Physics to the First Atomic Bombs
…"The Making of the Atomic Bomb, a book written by Richard Rhodes, dedicates several paragraphs to the Japanese nuclear research . Comparing the level of nuclear research in Germany and Japan, the book suggests that even though Japan had fewer qualified physicists than Germany, they were theoretically better prepared than them, partially due to the fact that many talented German scientists were forced to flee their country. According to Rhodes’s book, Japan not only had physicists whose calculations were more accurate than those of Heisenberg’s, but also was further along than Germany in its ability to purify Uranium. Like the German scientists, the Japanese were able to isolate only small amounts of Uranium for laboratory use, but not nearly enough for the making of an atomic bomb. “...
Last edited by radind; 10-07-2014 at 07:37 PM.







Post#169 at 10-07-2014 07:23 PM by Bad Dog [at joined Dec 2012 #posts 2,156]
---
10-07-2014, 07:23 PM #169
Join Date
Dec 2012
Posts
2,156

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Good point. It does point to the difference between the two theaters, though. We knew that Germany was determined to get nukes, and suspected that they had the wherewithal to deliver them. That was the motivation to attach the Vemork heavy water plant in Norway, and destroy their ability to make U235. I don't think that was ever a concern in the Pacific.

Trivia: all of the commandos involved in the raid to destroy the heavy water plant survived the raid, and most lived long lives. One is still alive at 95: Joachim Rønneberg
M&L, do you think we need to send these whippersnappers back to history class?







Post#170 at 10-07-2014 09:08 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
10-07-2014, 09:08 PM #170
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Good point. It does point to the difference between the two theaters, though. We knew that Germany was determined to get nukes, and suspected that they had the wherewithal to deliver them. That was the motivation to attach the Vemork heavy water plant in Norway, and destroy their ability to make U235. I don't think that was ever a concern in the Pacific.
America and Britain got the Jewish physicists for obvious reasons, and the German scientific effort faltered badly.

As for delivering an atom bomb, the Germans had a very good method of getting it anywhere on the Atlantic, Gulf, or Pacific coast: submarines which could have deposited it by laying it as if a mine or firing it as a torpedo. Of course, they never got The Bomb, so a delivery by submarine became moot.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#171 at 10-08-2014 12:33 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
10-08-2014, 12:33 AM #171
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
Just to correct a few gross errors: al Qaeda and, presumably ISIS, would love to explode a nuclear device, even a dirty bomb would do. Getting one is far from impossible, since control of the things in place like Pakistan is iffy at best. Even the Russians are pretty spotty on nuclear security ... as are we, lately.
If we're going to continue considering DU shells conventional weapons, dirty bombs can be considered the same. So, dirty bombs don't count as a big deal, because we give children leukemia all the time and I don't think that giving small children fatal diseases should fall adultery on the responsibility of the government.

Now, that leaves actual nuclear weapons. Let's look at wants. I'm willing to bet that Obama wants to nuke the earth on the daily, or at least every time he had to talk to Joe Biden. So, want is a rather abstract term. Sure I want to have a diet composed primarily of porterhouse steaks, but in the world of reality where that will give me significant increased risk of heart disease and cholesterol problems I limit my steak intake. Same thing with nuclear weapons.

Would ISIS like nuclear weapons? Sure, no brainer, every country wants them until they have them. Would they fire them? Given history, no, only the US would do that and only because they are the only people that have the have them. The minute that more than one power has a nuclear arsenal, nobody wants to play.

Now what about Al Queda? In the abstract, sure, they'd like a nuclear weapon. They might even shop around a bit. But when it comes down to dollars, they aren't going to do it because the money you'd spend on a nuclear bomb would get more mileage spent any other possible way. Even if you're selling bargain basement nukes, you're talking about millions of dollars, which in terms of operational costs aren't worth it to terrorists.

And that's just getting the nuke. Then you have the problem of deployment. Somewhere in this scheme, you're going to need someone who can actually tend to the device prior to detonation. It's not something you just stuff in a storage closet and hope for the best. So you'll need a nuclear technician of some sort, and those guys usually have jobs whose pay grade they don't want to jeopardize by being on a terrorist's retainer.

So when talking about realistic terror plots from realistic terror groups, I consider Al Queda with a nuke to be about as probable as someone organizing a real world Hydra and getting a nuclear bomb. It's a comic book plot, not something likely to actually happen.







Post#172 at 10-08-2014 06:24 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-08-2014, 06:24 AM #172
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
That was the motivation to attach the Vemork heavy water plant in Norway, and destroy their ability to make U235. I don't think that was ever a concern in the Pacific.
This always confused me, as I see no need for heavy water for making U235. Heavy water would be used in a nuclear reactor, presumably to make plutonium 239 from U238 by neutron capture. However one cannot make simple nukes from plutonium so the German program was dead in the water from the get-go. Making implosion devices is hard (which is why countries trying to get nukes today are still trying to make obsolete U235 devices). Seventy years later and countries like Iran lack the brainpower to do implosion. So did Germany in WW II, an extraordinary fraction of the top men were Jewish and they were here. So Germany never had a chance in hell of getting a nuke and that goes double for Japan. But we did not know this because WE thought you could make little boy-type bombs from plutonium. Later on we discovered otherwise, but we had worked on the two designs in parallel, implosion (technically difficult but uses easy-to-get Pu) and gun-type (technically easy but can't use Pu as it turned out so we had to use U235, which is really hard to get). We ended up making two bombs of each type.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-08-2014 at 06:39 AM.







Post#173 at 10-08-2014 07:45 AM by Mikebert [at Kalamazoo MI joined Jul 2001 #posts 4,501]
---
10-08-2014, 07:45 AM #173
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Kalamazoo MI
Posts
4,501

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
If Would ISIS like nuclear weapons?
I disagree
Now what about Al Qaeda? In the abstract, sure, they'd like a nuclear weapon.
I agree with this. The reason for the difference is in the names of the two groups. ISIS is the Islamic State. Being a state means they have a return address. They don't want to threaten America too much because massive retaliation would make a state impossible, they would have to return to just being another terrorist group.

Al Qaeda is a database, an incorporeal object. How do you bomb data? AQ is a brand that describes a certain kind of military religious order. AQ is characterized by a decentralized, cell-based structure. Although America can and did kill individuals in AQ, the meme would (and did) survive. After spending more than trillion dollars fighting two ground wars and countless drone and air attacks, the US is no further to restoring the pre-AQ world than they were after 911.

ISIS needs the US to fight them if they are to accomplish their goal. To gain control of Syria and Iraq they will make many enemies in the region. To offset them they need outside recruits and a unifying theme. By bringing Satan into the conflict they can paint anyone who opposes them as Satanic. After all America is the enemy of ISIS. Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, any local group that opposes ISIS is a friend of America.

But ISIS doesn't want America to fight too hard, because they cannot found their Caliphate upon smoking ruins. AQ wasn't trying to conquer anything so they did not care how hard the US attacked them. AQ had no interest in central Asia, their target was 2000 miles away, well out of the war region.

So AQ killed Americans in New York, while ISIS kills Americans who fall into their clutches. AQ gains from exploding a dirty bomb in the US. ISIS does not.
Last edited by Mikebert; 10-08-2014 at 08:52 AM.







Post#174 at 10-08-2014 01:48 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-08-2014, 01:48 PM #174
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
This always confused me, as I see no need for heavy water for making U235. Heavy water would be used in a nuclear reactor, presumably to make plutonium 239 from U238 by neutron capture. However one cannot make simple nukes from plutonium so the German program was dead in the water from the get-go. Making implosion devices is hard (which is why countries trying to get nukes today are still trying to make obsolete U235 devices). Seventy years later and countries like Iran lack the brainpower to do implosion. So did Germany in WW II, an extraordinary fraction of the top men were Jewish and they were here. So Germany never had a chance in hell of getting a nuke and that goes double for Japan. But we did not know this because WE thought you could make little boy-type bombs from plutonium. Later on we discovered otherwise, but we had worked on the two designs in parallel, implosion (technically difficult but uses easy-to-get Pu) and gun-type (technically easy but can't use Pu as it turned out so we had to use U235, which is really hard to get). We ended up making two bombs of each type.
My bad here. After doing some additional thinking, and verifying this with a quick read in Wikipedia, I have to modify my 235U (I screwed-up the original notation) comment to read 239Pu. Uranium can be harvested but Plutonium has to be created. The Germans went all-in for Plutonium because it was a lot cheaper to produce. I don't doubt that they could have managed the implosion technology eventually, but probably not soon enough.

But yes, we had the resources the Germans lacked ... including the brain power. Oak Ridge employed 82,000, and its primary mission was isotope separation. The shear number of centrifuges, and the small amount of 235U actually extracted, shows how difficult it is to build a bomb that way. Implosion, as you noted, is a technical feat, which is why bomb triggers and their components are so highly classified.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#175 at 10-08-2014 02:05 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
10-08-2014, 02:05 PM #175
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Mikebert View Post
I disagree

I agree with this. The reason for the difference is in the names of the two groups. ISIS is the Islamic State. Being a state means they have a return address. They don't want to threaten America too much because massive retaliation would make a state impossible, they would have to return to just being another terrorist group.

Al Qaeda is a database, an incorporeal object. How do you bomb data? AQ is a brand that describes a certain kind of military religious order. AQ is characterized by a decentralized, cell-based structure. Although America can and did kill individuals in AQ, the meme would (and did) survive. After spending more than trillion dollars fighting two ground wars and countless drone and air attacks, the US is no further to restoring the pre-AQ world than they were after 911.

ISIS needs the US to fight them if they are to accomplish their goal. To gain control of Syria and Iraq they will make many enemies in the region. To offset them they need outside recruits and a unifying theme. By bringing Satan into the conflict they can paint anyone who opposes them as Satanic. After all America is the enemy of ISIS. Since the enemy of my enemy is my friend, any local group that opposes ISIS is a friend of America.

But ISIS doesn't want America to fight too hard, because they cannot found their Caliphate upon smoking ruins. AQ wasn't trying to conquer anything so they did not care how hard the US attacked them. AQ had no interest in central Asia, their target was 2000 miles away, well out of the war region.

So AQ killed Americans in New York, while ISIS kills Americans who fall into their clutches. AQ gains from exploding a dirty bomb in the US. ISIS does not.
I think you are giving both groups too much credit for being logical.

IS is a state in name only. Do they actually want to be a state? Beats me. They don't have the chops for it, that's for sure. But that may not matter, if they can convince themselves that it's a viable option. Once inside the echo-bubble, the logic of deploying and exploding a nuclear weapon of any kind is drowned out by the ideological din of their own fanaticism. So would they do it? I honestly don't know. If they had access and justification, as they see it, then they might. They have enough suicidal maniacs around to deliver it by truck, so that's not a problem for them.

AQ, on the other hand, is a lot more savvy, but how much blow-back they're willing to suffer is also an open question. They also need a story they believe to justify blowing something to kingdom come, but they seem fully capable of that. If they decided to give it a go, Fed Ex is their delivery vehicle.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 10-08-2014 at 02:07 PM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
-----------------------------------------