Derek 2.0
-
Posts
8,138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Derek 2.0
-
-
11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
Perhaps I was misinformed. My source was Colonel Nichols, CO of CFB Comox and his previous appointment was Canada's senior officer in NORAD during the early 1970's. I do believe you are underestimating the lethal effects of fallout.
Your source (or you) isn't looking at the entire picture........both sides, during the 70s, had far more warheads at their disposal (then in the 10s of thousands), even then, such assumption is assuming the entire arsenals of both sides were active (at best 1/3rd would be at anytime), warheads weren't destroyed in targeted strikes, the end user was able to deploy and employ said forces and said warheads worked with 100% reliability (which they wouldn't)
I'm not underestimating fallout at all, more so, I have an understanding that fallout and the physical destruction (outside of the targeted area) isn't linear to the amount of megatons.......for example, if the Russians were so inclined, a single 800 kiloton warhead detonated over Saskatoon versus six 800 kiloton warheads detonated over Saskatoon wouldn't create a proportional amount of fallout that would effect the surrounding areas.....even blast and over pressure wouldn't be proportional within Saskatoon itself.......in other words, people ~100km away from ground zero would have little physical negative effect......
The Americans and Russians detonated hundreds of atmospheric warheads throughout the Cold War.......and well.....you can go to Vegas and not come home glowing in the dark.
QuoteHowever, conceding your point, 100,000,000 American fatalities and an unknown number of surviving casualties, the destruction of infrastructure, the effects of radioactive fallout on agriculture, the issue precipitating a war between Nato and Russia and/ or China had better be worth it. I hope that a pissing contest would not qualify. In my youth there was a phrase, "Better to be red than dead."
To paraphrase General Buck Turgidson.......I never said either side wouldn't get their hair messed up.......a major exchange would crater the World economy and have huge negative impacts on the largely Second and Third World countries that would remain unharmed from the war itself......but it wouldn't end all, or most, of life on the planet.....
-
24 minutes ago, Wilber said:
Short of war, they can do nothing as long as China continues to prop up Kim Boy.
I'd question how much propping China is doing (quid pro quo on trade relations with the Trump administration).....based on the Chinese halting North Korean coal imports (in favor of American coal), amassing several armies along the North Korean border and increasing the readiness of their air force, including their bomber force........
24 minutes ago, Wilber said:Without the Western bogyman to justify it, Kim's military would be out of a job, so I wouldn't hold my breath expecting it to do anything.
Kim's military is starving and isn't suicidal.........two things that would need to be rectified if it were to go to war with the United States and its allies........an attempted limited North Korean nuclear strike aside, their conventional forces could cause immense damage on the South in a very short period of time, for a very short period of time......in the end, forgoing a US nuclear response, they would fair much the same as the Iraqis did during both conflicts with the Americans/West when faced with modern technology, munitions and tactics.
-
On 4/19/2017 at 3:01 PM, Wilber said:
I don't think the West can force anything on NK.
Oh they can, the question is at what cost........the path of least resistance, and appears to be what is going on, is to further economically isolate and surround the Hermit Kingdom with overwhelming military force......in the hopes that Dear Leader's military says "to hell with this" and replaces him.
-
13 hours ago, blackbird said:
why the Canadian Charter of Rights does not include the right to own private property in Canada?
Simple, the then Trudeau government, buoyed by the courts, didn't want the enshrined headaches associated with such rights.........think First Nations, treaty rights and land claims and magnify it to include the entire country and its population.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:
While I agree NATO must stand together and an attack on one member is an attack on all, requiring a full nuclear response, it is chilling to note that such an action would result in the death of 95% of the world's population in the first week. The rest would die in the next few days.
That's far fetched.......even during the height of the Cold War, when there were far more city killing warheads on both sides, it was estimated that even if the Soviets targeted major US population centers with a first strike (which they wouldn't, as they would be going after the American/NATO nuclear forces), the initial attack and fallout would claim ~1/3rd of the US population......an American strike on the Soviets would claim even less, due in large part to the then lower Soviet population density in cities with even more Soviet peoples living in rural areas............With that said, it was expected, that Europe would fair far worse, with both West and East Germany expected to lose ~80+% of their populations.....With that is the reality that most of the World's population found in South America, Africa and Southern Asia (assuming no exchange between India and Pakistan) wouldn't be directly effected by a nuclear exchange between NATO and the Warsaw Pact.............Today there are far less warheads, and the warheads that largely remain are smaller and in part due to technology, far more effective thanks to modern (GPS) guidance systems......allowing smaller to and fewer warheads to have the same "impact" (pun intended) as those warheads several decades ago.
-
8 hours ago, ?Impact said:
that was a well known fact during the election.
If it were a well known fact, why wasn't the Obama administration able to obtain a warrant not once, but twice from a FISA court?
-
-
6 hours ago, Argus said:
The fact the Washington Post doesn't tell outright lies like Brietbart and Infowars doesn't matter, I take it. Plus it has almost nothing about the space aliens from Neptune who control our banking system or the risen Pharaohs of Egypt who live in our subway systems. SHAME!
Speaking of the Washington Post, if there were no wiretaps, how did the FBI get conversations of Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador?
Probably not space aliens from Neptune.....
-
7 hours ago, Wilber said:
Then either there will be record of a warrant or what the FBI was doing was illegal.
Not necessarily. If the then US administration determined it a threat to national security, through US code, the President is able (through the Attorney General) to obtain foreign intelligence information for up to one year sans a warrant. Now the intent is not to obtain information on a US citizen, mistakes do happen of course, but information pertaining to foreign nationals or US citizens working for a foreign government (a spy).
So if the Obama administration "believed" someone in the Trump campaign were a Russian spy, intercepting communications from Trump Tower, absent a warrant, is legal.......the only difficulty, if found said "spy" were a US citizen, would be obtaining a court order based on said information in hopes of prosecuting said "spy".......unless said information was obtained from a US ally with whom they have an intelligence sharing agreement.
-
5 hours ago, Wilber said:
Well, if he has evidence he will have given it to the FBI. Right?
If Trump Tower was bugged, they likely are the ones who did it.
-
8 hours ago, BubberMiley said:
The fact that no one else seems to know what he's talking about and the fact that there were breitbart/Infowars fake news reports that it happened.
The fact nobody seems to know.........Remember when James Clapper swore up and down that the NSA didn't collect and store surveillance data on the American public, only to then be forced to walk back his entire statement thanks to Edward Snowden?
Simply put, since the Reagan administration, the POTUS/Federal Government is lawfully able to conduct surveillance, without a warrant, on anyone his government so deems a National Security risk.........of course, the President isn't the one that issues such orders, that is left to the purview of the Attorney General.....hence the statement from an Obama adviser that stated Obama never issued an order is very likely true......as he wouldn't be required to.
-
4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:
it's looking more likely that Trump was reading Breitbart or Infowars and fell for it.
Based on what?
4 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:It must be very embarrassing having to defend this guy. I feel for you.
Where have I defended him on this subject?
-
30 minutes ago, kimmy said:
Well, that's one possibility. The other possibility is that Trump pulled the idea out of his ass, and that this is nothing more than sheer bald-faced slander.
Sure......or that the FBI had someone working inside the Trump campaign (or Trump tower) that would be apart of any conversations they wanted to listen to, fore New York State has a one party consent law which requires at least one person, in any conversation, be aware they are being recorded........ergo, the FBI would have never applied for a court order to wire tap Trump tower.....hence no need to visit the FISA court.....which they didn't, as confirmed by James Clapper.
-
2 hours ago, BubberMiley said:
I think it's likely that his "wires" were "tapped" legally under the order of a judge and Trump is panicking and trying to get ahead of the story by getting the mob riled about Obama. It's kind of scary how his mineons are so easily played.
Not likely........Obama's intelligence Czar just denied the Government ever applied for a wire tap through a FISA court.........aside from eliminating one of your possible three conclusions, leaving Trump is crazy or its Watergate 2.0, that indicates that there wasn't even the thinnest of evidence indicating ties between the Russkies and the Trump campaign.
-
A good interview between Mad Max and Rod Giltaca from the CCFR:
-
12 hours ago, betsy said:
I'm now leaning towards Bernier. He is a Conservative.
Good to hear.......I've been all in for Mad Max for months....O'Toole and Scheer will get the #2 & #3 spots on my ballot.....I might give Blaney, Raitt and Alexander a 4-5-6....but I have no intention of marking anyone else. If O'Leary wins the leadership, though my family would still likely vote Tory in 2019, we'll cease all donations........I'm insulted that he feels he can skip the debates..............I forget who said it, but he's been described best as the Home Shopping version of Trump.
-
1
-
-
That's too bad, from what I understand something went wrong during a surgery. Always an actor that I enjoyed. The wife and I watched the first episode of his new TV reboot Training Day and thought it to be kinda bland......To be honest, Paxton was the only reason we bothered with a network drama.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, August1991 said:
I prefer a real deal, free trade Conservative: a Mulroney, a Trump: Someone who, when all is considered, makes life better for ordinary people.
Clearly you're talking about Bernier
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Army Guy said:
perhaps the PM is not as transparent as he said he'd like to be.....
I'm shocked I tells yah
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, ?Impact said:
Molten aluminum also reacts with iron oxide (rust) to produce ... thermite.
Bingo........
-
Just now, Army Guy said:
I'd really like to know who within the Liberal Cabinet is advising them on these purchases.......and what their qualifications are?
Well they just announced before Christmas that PAL Aerospace of St. John's "won" the 20 year contract to maintain the new FWSAR fleet.......a happy accident that the local MP is friends (like spent Christmas together friends) with the Prime Minister........
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Army Guy said:
Derek, the liberals have already spoken, it has wings, a few engines, and wheels it is good enough....come on....i mean you don't have to stand up if your over 6 ft tall, never have to wear a helmet, or ear phones for comms, nor do we have to worry about the floor not being reinforced.....according to the liberal experts some of which are here on this forum, all you need is a folding chair, some bino's and a window to look out of.....and maybe SAR techs might have to jump once or twice.....
So it appears.......but more from the CBC:
QuoteThe company cites a number of grounds, including a claim the C-295W does not meet the specifications originally set out by the Royal Canadian Air Force, notably the ability to "perform mandatory long-range missions stipulated" in the request for proposals.
Leonardo's court filing also raises alleged safety concerns related to the absence of a redundant power system in the aircraft.
"The necessary consequences of this inadequacy should have been the disqualification (if no modification was proposed) or rating penalization (if a modification was proposed) of the Airbus proposal," said the filing.
Why would Canada want a long range FWSAR aircraft, with a redundant emergency power system, by which I assume the absent auxiliary power unit within the c-295W?
Whats a couple hundred million between friends?
QuoteIn late November, the Liberal government announced it was buying the C-295 in a two-step procurement for a total price of $4.7 billion over the next two decades.
The first step — at a cost of $2.4 billion — involves the purchase of aircraft, simulators and 11 years of support.
The second step involves a future in-service support program that will have to be negotiated with Airbus, at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion.
However, in the request for proposals, which was filed in court as part of the supporting documents, all bidders were told their package could not exceed $3.4 billion, including in-service maintenance support.
I smelt a rat from the moment this deal was made public............wait for the legal challenge once/if they purchase the "interim" Super Hornets.....
-
1
-
-
Another bungled procurement?
Quote“Team Spartan’s main allegation is that the selected airplane is unfit to safely perform certain key search and rescue tasks and missions required by Canada and should have been, therefore, disqualified,” the release states. “Based on the above, Team Spartan has applied to the Federal Court for an order requesting that Canada cancel the contract with Airbus and award same to Leonardo.”
-
1
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Wilber said:
That was reported by multiple agencies, not just the NYT.
Agencies since "banned" from a meeting in Spicer's office?
14 minutes ago, Wilber said:QuoteThe FBI would not say whether it had contacted the White House about the veracity of the Times report.
That was from Fox News.
Is there another Fox News? I'm currently watching Chris Wallace anchoring the Factor, and their take differs.......and is reported as much:
QuoteFox News has learned that McCabe indeed had initiated the conversation, asking to speak with Priebus for a few minutes at the end of an intelligence meeting last week. During that conversation, McCabe informed the chief of staff that the Times story was wrong.
Priebus wanted to know what he could do, but apparently was told later by McCabe that the FBI couldn’t be calling balls and strikes on every news story. FBI Director James Comey later told Priebus he could go out and refute the story, which he did.
If CNN and NYT etc are reporting "fake news" about the Trump administration.....why would they expect to get special access?
15 minutes ago, ?Impact said:With no disclosed evidence - big, big difference.
Likewise "no evidence" or "incorrect evidence".
Russia simulates nuclear attack on Poland
in The Rest of the World
Posted
Exactly......and likewise from the strategic perspective of the Soviets....The very first target for ones strategic weapons were the other guys strategic weapons, leadership and command & control establishment.....
And of course the USN's then TACAMO fleet in conjunction with the SSBN portion of the nuclear trident.......
Exactly.......large industrial and population centers would be very low on the initial list of first and second strike targets....Thats not to say some cities with strategic targets found within their limits wouldn't be primary targets of a first strike though.....
Exactly....likewise....smart (conventional) munitions themselves have also negated much of the need for low yield battlefield nukes that were still determined a requirement by both sides into the 80s...