Sweden says cold war is back, starts conscription

[dre]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

General dre says "We do nothing until after they're bombing our cities! Then we will consider what to do!"

Wait... didn't they bomb a US city, and isn't that why we went into Afghanistan? Oh, wait, General dre doesn't want any defensive alliances.

Walmart Greeter Argus, as usual with a stunning argument and convincing argument for you as you walk from the entrance towards the grocery aisle.

Quote

Wait... didn't they bomb a US city.

Yup! And didn't intelligence agencies warn them for decades that was coming, as a result of exactly the same violent interventionalist policies I was just comdemning? Oh... And didnt further violent intervention AFTER that result in a dramatic increase in terrorism world wide? OOPS!

Fact is, your brilliant ideas consistently achieve the opposite of what you hope they will, and they actually make it MORE likely that one of our cities will get bombed.

 

[Guest]

I always wonder about the old, "we deserve it because of what someone who looks like me did to someone who looks like them" argument.  I always wonder about how far its proponents would actually be willing to take it.

[bush_cheney2004]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I always wonder about the old, "we deserve it because of what someone who looks like me did to someone who looks like them" argument.  I always wonder about how far its proponents would actually be willing to take it.

 

Agreed...if it was a logical argument, Canada would have been attacked many times by now because "we deserve it", "had it coming", and "should have known better".   Certainly more than Sweden.

Edited March 13, 2017 by bush_cheney2004

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Certainly more than Sweden.

Maybe not Sweden...  

[Argus]

15 hours ago, dre said:

Walmart Greeter Argus, as usual with a stunning argument and convincing argument for you as you walk from the entrance towards the grocery aisle.

Pretty sure I can buy and sell you, boy.

15 hours ago, dre said:

Yup! And didn't intelligence agencies warn them for decades that was coming, as a result of exactly the same violent interventionalist policies I was just comdemning?

You isolationists are about as sane and sensible in your beliefs as the flat earth crowd. At a time when the likes of Iran and North Korea is improving its missiles distances there is no way to remain aloof from what is going on in the world. That, of course, is on top of any moral problems we might have with, say, standing back and letting a crazy lunatic like Kim John Un invade South Korea and slaughter millions, or happily playing video games, secure in our knowledge that while the Arabs are butchering millions of Jews in Israel it ain't our problem.

 

 

[dre]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Pretty sure I can buy and sell you, boy.

You isolationists are about as sane and sensible in your beliefs as the flat earth crowd. At a time when the likes of Iran and North Korea is improving its missiles distances there is no way to remain aloof from what is going on in the world. 

Again belligerent policy on our side is making that worse. George Bush named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as an "Axis of Evil", and then invaded Iraq resulting in the deaths of somewhere around 1/2 a million people. Now if you were in charge of Iran or NK, and you saw that, wouldn't YOU be scrambling to come up with some kind of deterrent to western aggression?

Quote

That, of course, is on top of any moral problems we might have with, say, standing back and letting a crazy lunatic like Kim John Un invade South Korea and slaughter millions, or happily playing video games, secure in our knowledge that while the Arabs are butchering millions of Jews in Israel it ain't our problem.

That's all just based on bluster for chicken hawk politicians, and you lap it up like puppy chow. Israels military and intelligence communities don't view Iran as much of a threat at all. You watch too many movies. Even if Iran DOES get nuclear weapons the chances of them launching an unprovoked attack against Israel are virtually zero. They know that it would bring about the end of the entire Persian race. They have zero record of doing anything remotely like that, and their theocratic leader has been relatively predictable. There's no great chance of that, then there is of Pakistan launching a nuclear attack on India. MAD doctrine works. At the end of the day leaders in all these countries have cushy lavish lives, and they aren't chomping at the bit to die. They are primarily concerned with their own well being, and holding onto power.

[DogOnPorch]

16 minutes ago, dre said:

Israels military and intelligence communities don't view Iran as much of a threat at all. You watch too many movies.

 

Say again?

 

Quote

Even if Iran DOES get nuclear weapons the chances of them launching an unprovoked attack against Israel are virtually zero. They know that it would bring about the end of the entire Persian race. They have zero record of doing anything remotely like that, and their theocratic leader has been relatively predictable. There's no great chance of that, then there is of Pakistan launching a nuclear attack on India. MAD doctrine works. At the end of the day leaders in all these countries have cushy lavish lives, and they aren't chomping at the bit to die. They are primarily concerned with their own well being, and holding onto power.

 

It's those theoretical unprovoked attacks known as a first strike that make atomic weapons such a specter of fiery doom.

Israel is extremely vulnerable to a first strike due to its size. Iran has even mentioned it and claimed they could take any surviving retaliation...scary.

An EMP device 'accidentally' exploding in LEO as it passes over Israel is also a growing threat...not only from Iran. They swore it was for scientific purposes...

[Wilber]

36 minutes ago, dre said:

That's all just based on bluster for chicken hawk politicians, and you lap it up like puppy chow. Israels military and intelligence communities don't view Iran as much of a threat at all. You watch too many movies. Even if Iran DOES get nuclear weapons the chances of them launching an unprovoked attack against Israel are virtually zero. They know that it would bring about the end of the entire Persian race. They have zero record of doing anything remotely like that, and their theocratic leader has been relatively predictable. There's no great chance of that, then there is of Pakistan launching a nuclear attack on India. MAD doctrine works. At the end of the day leaders in all these countries have cushy lavish lives, and they aren't chomping at the bit to die. They are primarily concerned with their own well being, and holding onto power.

That's why they indulge in conventional militaries and conventional wars. Nukes give you two options, Armageddon or surrender. Hence the stupidity of those who would suggest a country like Canada should rely solely on a nuclear option. 

[DogOnPorch]

And speaking of the ol' Cold War...Beneath the Planet of the Apes was on the boob tube...ahhhh...the Cobalt Bomb....

Gold would work, too, apparently...as well as other heavier transition metals. But Cobalt wins due to price and and acceptable half life.

Of course, one wouldn't put one of these atop a rocket. But, rather, it would be more like Ivy Mike...a huge facility...which is the high yield hydrogen device encased in cobalt.

It blowed-up...blowed-up REAL good.

Edited March 13, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Nuclear_Research_Center

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....right?

[?Impact]

37 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Israel is extremely vulnerable to a first strike due to its size. Iran has even mentioned it and claimed they could take any surviving retaliation...scary.

I think this is where the US comes in. The question is if Iran wipes out Israel, would the US retaliate, and how.

[DogOnPorch]

11 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

I think this is where the US comes in. The question is if Iran wipes out Israel, would the US retaliate, and how.

 

Doubt it.

It would be a fait accompli...

War would follow...surly. Nuclear war....hmmmmmm....pass.

[DogOnPorch]

Thus my cobalt bomb musings...never again. It isn't science fiction...cobalt devices. Just unthinkable.

[dre]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

Say again?

It's those theoretical unprovoked attacks known as a first strike that make atomic weapons such a specter of fiery doom.

Israel is extremely vulnerable to a first strike due to its size. Iran has even mentioned it and claimed they could take any surviving retaliation...scary.

An EMP device 'accidentally' exploding in LEO as it passes over Israel is also a growing threat...not only from Iran. They swore it was for scientific purposes...

I don't find your fear mongering compelling. I would rather consider the opinions of Israels own intelligence and military, than  those of belligerent chicken hawk politicians and their hapless, witless cheering sections.

Quote

 

Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, says Iran does not pose a threat to Israel.

Responding to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s argument that the Iran nuclear deal would “threaten the survival” of the country, Halevy says there is no “existential threat” to Israel, including from Iran.

 

 

Same goes for the Nuclear deal reached with Iran a while back. Firebrand war-mongering civilian leaders like Netanyahu instantly cry "this will mean the end of Israel", and forum dwelling internet chicken-hawks were ever so happy to join the chorus.

But lets look at what people that really KNOW stuff had to say...

Amos Yadlin, head of Israeli Military Intelligence:

Quote

“The agreement rolls back the Iranian nuclear program to the point of a breakout time [to produce enough fuel for one nuclear weapon] of one year, reduces the scope of the program, and places it under a verification regime that is much more invasive than the current system and includes access to military facilities. For at least the next ten years, the threat of nuclear armament in Iran has been reduced.”

 

Israeli Chief of the General Staff Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot:

Quote

 

“Without a doubt the nuclear deal between Iran and the West is a historic turning point. It is a big change in terms of the direction that Iran was headed, and in the way that we saw things.”

“It has many risks, but also presents many opportunities. Our role is to look at the risk prism and the capability prism and to judge from that—not to assume that the worst-case scenario will take place, because that is as dangerous as the best-case scenario. Therefore, we are now revisiting our strategy.”

“In the 15-year timeframe that we are looking towards, we are still keeping Iran high on our priority lists because we need to monitor its nuclear program. But this is a real change. This is a strategic turning point.”

 

 

So who should I listen to? Israels own top intelligence officials? Or message board chicken hawks that want diplomacy to fail so they can watch a war on TV from the safety of their couch in moms basement?

Gosh... I wonder 

Edited March 13, 2017 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, dre said:

I don't find your fear mongering compelling. I would rather consider the opinions of Israels own intelligence and military, than  those of belligerent chicken hawk politicians and their hapless, witless cheering section.

 

So who should I listen to? Israels own top intelligence officials? Or message board chicken hawks that want diplomacy to fail so they can watch a war on TV from the safety of their couch in moms basement?

Gosh... I wonder 

 

I'll take your three expert's opinions that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons (et al) the respect they deserve.

I wonder how many experts say the exact opposite of these three? More than a few...starting with Netanyahu...eh?

It's a fallacy known as: the Law of Small Numbers that you're trying to foist upon me, here.

 

Anyways...Sweden...

I always admired the Cold War era S-Tank...turret-less...low...and designed specifically to fight Soviet tanks along forested roads. Sweden is full of those.

I think they use a more Leopard II-ish type rig, now.

 

 

[overthere]

Sweden is very well armed for a 'neutral' country.

[Wilber]

On 2017-03-14 at 0:08 PM, overthere said:

Sweden is very well armed for a 'neutral' country.

So is Switzerland.