ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 20th June 2019, 04:04 AM   #321
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,516
Let's not forget that Persia invaded Greece!

Trump has no choice but to declare war under US NATO obligations.
__________________
Careful! That tree's bark is worse than its bite.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 04:55 AM   #322
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,914
Breaking news...

Originally Posted by CNN
Iranian forces have shot down a United States military drone, a move that appears to have escalated the volatile situation playing out between Washington and Tehran in the Middle East.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it had shot down an "intruding American spy drone" after it entered into the country's territory Thursday.

A US official confirmed to CNN a drone had been shot down, but said the incident occurred in international airspace over the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most vital shipping routes...
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/06/20/mid...ntl/index.html
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 04:57 AM   #323
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
- "It was in our territory!"
- "It was in international waters!"

Typical.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 05:04 AM   #324
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,782
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
- "It was in our territory!"
- "It was in international waters!"

Typical.
I seem to remember that in the 1980s the US would work to a 3 mile limit with, ssy, Libya.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 05:29 AM   #325
Doubt
Philosopher
 
Doubt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,996
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
I seem to remember that in the 1980s the US would work to a 3 mile limit with, ssy, Libya.
The international law of the sea treaty allows for 12 nautical miles.
__________________
Doubt world tour locations:

Detroit, Mexico, Detroit, Mexico....
Repeat for all of 2017 except when on vacation.
Doubt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:07 AM   #326
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 22,914
Iran did shoot down a US drone, but it reportedly has now issued a "fake photo" of the destroyed drone.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-state-TV.html
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:31 AM   #327
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Regarding Russia, some of their aggressive behavior you have noticed is probably related to the unfair pseudo-sanctions imposed on them: it should not be a crime to respect democracy, and the voice of the people in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
Don't make me laugh at your pitiful attempt to excuse Putin's revanchist irredentism.

Quote:
About North Korea, a complete and unrestricted lifting of sanctions would probably (partly) cure many problems, even the lack of democracy, through economic exchanges and relations (ideally, nuclear weapons should be banned for all countries, including the one we are thinking about, not just for some small and weak countries which do not have the same scary record of bombings, arrogance and invasions).
The reasons why North Korea is a totalitarian hereditary-dictatorship are entirely self imposed, as are the reasons why their people live such poor and worthless lives. Even the Soviet Union and China resented and sought to pressure North Korea away from its extreme isolationist and totalitarian tendencies, but to no avail.

Quote:
As for Iran, its leaders seem to be fairly peaceful gentlemen, and obliging Israel to comply with international law would probably create a much better situation in the Middle East, better for peace, human rights, and economic prosperity. In addition, it would not cost anything to the U.S., this would actually allow the United States to save money.
Iran has since the start of the 21 century managed, mostly thanks to the unwitting assistance of the United States, to dominate Iraq as a client state and is now finalizing its goal turning Syria into one as well. It also heavily dominates Lebanon through Hezbollah, which continues to launch terrorist attacks against Israeli interests, and it's allies in Yemen are trying to keep themselves from being destroyed after their attempt at a coup failed.

There is nothing peaceful about Iran's expansionist tendencies, which are not too dissimilar from Russia's except in how much more successful they have been. Israel and especially Saudi Arabia are black sheep that should've be reined in long ago, but this does not absolve Iranian from the fact that it's own belligerence is the reason why this conflict exists in the first place. If the Iranian leadership wants peace the they shouldn't call for the destruction of other countries while at the same time trying to get nuclear weapons. Likewise if they don't want to be accused of attacking civilian shipping they shouldn't threaten to effectively do so.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 20th June 2019 at 06:34 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:36 AM   #328
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
- "It was in our territory!"
- "It was in international waters!"

Typical.
Even if we assume that it was within Iranian airspace they shouldn't have shot it down and instead made a formal complaint through the UN security council. That would have gone a long way of showing their genuine unwillingness to be baited into a military conflict, while also painting the US as the aggressor. But the Iranian's are desperate to retaliate against America...
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:39 AM   #329
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,491
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
The international law of the sea treaty allows for 12 nautical miles.
The Strait of Hormuz (along with several other straits) is a special location under that treaty. Iran isn't allowed to block it off even within their 12 mile zone.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:44 AM   #330
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by Michel H View Post
Regarding Russia, some of their aggressive behavior you have noticed is probably related to the unfair pseudo-sanctions imposed on them: it should not be a crime to respect democracy, and the voice of the people in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

About North Korea, a complete and unrestricted lifting of sanctions would probably (partly) cure many problems, even the lack of democracy, through economic exchanges and relations (ideally, nuclear weapons should be banned for all countries, including the one we are thinking about, not just for some small and weak countries which do not have the same scary record of bombings, arrogance and invasions).

As for Iran, its leaders seem to be fairly peaceful gentlemen, and obliging Israel to comply with international law would probably create a much better situation in the Middle East, better for peace, human rights, and economic prosperity. In addition, it would not cost anything to the U.S., this would actually allow the United States to save money.
That's.... well, it's an opinion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:46 AM   #331
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
We're talking about a guy who wondered what good nuclear weapons were if we didn't use them.
A question we should all be asking more often, I think.

Quote:
Whose closest advisors have been itching for a war with Iran for years.
LOL. If you say so.

Quote:
He's putting together an awfully big stick. Do you really believe he has the self-restraint not to use it?
Aside from trolling you on Twitter, I think he's shown quite a lot of restraint. Everybody keeps telling me he's an unhinged madman and he's gonna do the unhinged madman thing Real Soon Now. At some point you need to consider that maybe you're wrong.

---

Anyway, Iran is already at war with us. Hopefully the buildup in the region will encourage them to dial it back a bit. And if not, it's good that the buildup is there.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:50 AM   #332
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
A question we should all be asking more often, I think.
Huh? Should we really use nukes? The best use of nukes are as a deterrent, not as actual weapons, especially in a world where other people have them.

Quote:
LOL. If you say so.
What's funny about that? Bolton and Pompeo sure have.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 06:58 AM   #333
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,147
Originally Posted by Doubt View Post
The international law of the sea treaty allows for 12 nautical miles.
It depends on how narrow the waters are.

Straights of Dover, Řresund Straight, Straights of Corfu etc.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 07:27 AM   #334
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Huh? Should we really use nukes? The best use of nukes are as a deterrent, not as actual weapons, especially in a world where other people have them.
That's the conventional wisdom, anyway. But I think it's a mistake to let a whole generation go by without a critical review of the weapons and their doctrine. Even if the consensus is still that they should only be used as a deterrent, we shouldn't take it for granted.

Ideally a president-elect, at least, should have dedicated extensive thought to the doctrines of MAD and NUTS, what nuclear weapons are and what they imply. He should arrive on day one of his administration with his nuclear weapons policy already in place, needing only the specific classified details of the system that will be disclosed to him once he takes office.

And even then, he should still challenge his staff, and the Pentagon, to answer the question.

Obviously Donald Trump is not that man - except for the part where he actually asks the challenging question. But I doubt any of our recent presidents had given the question much more thought than he did, before taking office. I'd rather have a president who stops to think and ask, than a president who just assumes the question is already answered and doesn't require any more thought.

---

Or maybe they have. Another possibility is that every incoming president asks some version of the question, when they're being briefed about the weapons for the first time. Maybe they all ask, but for some reason it doesn't usually get leaked and make the news.

Anyway, if they haven't asked, I think they should. If only to put the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the spot, and make him demonstrate that he, at least, has given the question serious thought, and has his own well-formed opinions about the dreadful weapons he's been entrusted with.

With which he has been entrusted.

There's a lot to be said for an incoming boss who takes some time to ask stupid questions and see what his staff has for answers.

Quote:
What's funny about that? Bolton and Pompeo sure have.
'k

Last edited by theprestige; 20th June 2019 at 07:30 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 07:46 AM   #335
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
The problem with "Nukes" is their psychological aspect.

We have very small nuclear weapons (either already or in development/planning) that no more powerful then very large conventional explosives but we can't just pretend that using them in combat would have the same political response.

We can debate the good and bad of this, but it's there.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:05 AM   #336
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The problem with "Nukes" is their psychological aspect.

We have very small nuclear weapons (either already or in development/planning) that no more powerful then very large conventional explosives but we can't just pretend that using them in combat would have the same political response.

We can debate the good and bad of this, but it's there.
This isn't the thread for it, but there's a lot that could be said on this topic. A lot that should be discussed, but isn't because too many people are taking it for granted that the discussion all happened decades ago and the issue is settled for all time. My point is simply that we shouldn't take the discussion for granted, and that everyone needs to actually think it through and settle it for themselves. So it's refreshing to me to have a president who gets to the White House and actually bothers to ask, what's the deal with nuclear weapons, anyway.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:24 AM   #337
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,726
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Huh? Should we really use nukes? The best use of nukes are as a deterrent, not as actual weapons, especially in a world where other people have them..
I was thinking about this... if it comes to it, and tactical nukes are the *only* way to destroy Iran's nuclear program from the air then... maybe. I think I'd rather have low-yield nukes used in anger than a ground war in Iran. Gotta get Russia's OK though to avoid ww3 though.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:26 AM   #338
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,019
Did they do the thing where it loops in and then right back out of Iranian airspace? Assuming the Iranians don't fire a missile until the drone is in their airspace, and assuming the drone was at 56,000 feet and moving just below Mach 1, then the missile might not hit the drone until the drone is back outside of Iranian airspace.

Like when Turkey shot down a Russian jet over Syria that had been looping in and out of Turkish airspace. They fired the missile when the jet was over Turkey, but the missile didn't hit the jet until it was back over Syria.

It is an easy was to draw fire while claiming plausible deniability. Both sides get to be outraged, both sides can massage the story to make themselves look innocent. Just more brinkmanship.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:31 AM   #339
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
This is also compounded by there's no "officially" political right way to react to a drone being shot down. Do you treat it like an airplane being shot down, like a missile being shot down, new category?

I don't think Iran is trying to escalate things with American exactly, they are trying to gauge exactly how much of an escalation shooting down a drone is and the problem nobody really knows yet.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:47 AM   #340
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,491
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is also compounded by there's no "officially" political right way to react to a drone being shot down. Do you treat it like an airplane being shot down, like a missile being shot down, new category?
There isn't an official political right way to an airplane being shot down either. It's a rare enough event that each one gets handled on a pretty case-by-case basis (see Russia's downing of MH17, for example).

Quote:
I don't think Iran is trying to escalate things with American exactly,
Oh, I think they absolutely are trying to escalate things, but in a limited manner. I doubt they're willing to escalate to lethal force at this point, but they're probably happy to play tit-for-tat on equipment, since their stuff is all cheap compared to ours.

Quote:
they are trying to gauge exactly how much of an escalation shooting down a drone is and the problem nobody really knows yet.
Except this isn't the first US drone they've gone after successfully. Remember this?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 08:53 AM   #341
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 18,579
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There isn't an official political right way to an airplane being shot down either. It's a rare enough event that each one gets handled on a pretty case-by-case basis (see Russia's downing of MH17, for example).
True but if Country A shoots down Country B's airplane everyone agrees it's a major escalation if we're talking conflict or a major incident if we're talking an accident one/off or whatever.

Quote:
Oh, I think they absolutely are trying to escalate things, but in a limited manner. I doubt they're willing to escalate to lethal force at this point, but they're probably happy to play tit-for-tat on equipment, since their stuff is all cheap compared to ours.
I certainly agree there's a level of "Let's figure out how many of America's expensive toys we can break and get away with it" in there somewhere.

Quote:
Except this isn't the first US drone they've gone after successfully. Remember this?
Sometimes it takes more then one event to set a precedent.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:03 AM   #342
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I was thinking about this... if it comes to it, and tactical nukes are the *only* way to destroy Iran's nuclear program from the air then... maybe. I think I'd rather have low-yield nukes used in anger than a ground war in Iran. Gotta get Russia's OK though to avoid ww3 though.
"WW3" only happens if Russia thinks the US is launching missiles at Russian cities or ICBM complexes (or the US thinks Russia is doing the same). A stealth bomber delivering a single 0.3 KT B61 to Iran wouldn't start WW3 even if Trump didn't bother to pick up the red phone until after the strike.

He'd have to wait until afterwards, since he wouldn't want the Russians to give Iran advance warning of the attack.

I guess it could go through a UNSC process, getting a vague general agreement from the other voting members that nukes are on the table as an option for dealing with Iran, but without any commitments as to if or when they'll be used. Wait a few weeks to see if Iran takes the hint. If not, "surprise!", and then give Putin a call to confirm that he's on the same page.

But Putin's not an idiot. He's not going to freak out and initiate mutually assured destruction just because a nuke went off in Iran.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:17 AM   #343
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is also compounded by there's no "officially" political right way to react to a drone being shot down. Do you treat it like an airplane being shot down, like a missile being shot down, new category?
This doesn't seem like rocket surgery to me. There's a substantial body of practice for how to handle losses of life and equipment between near-belligerents at friction points. Border clashes, tit-for-tat raids, spy plane shoot-downs, harassment of shipping, capturing of spies, tapping of lines, bugging of buildings, etc. There's a whole rainbow of incidents to learn from.

I don't think there can be an "official" policy for this kind of thing. Each event takes place in an evolving context that makes it somewhat unique. You don't actually need a system of formal logic or a hard and fast rule that applies generally to all such incidents.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:22 AM   #344
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Sometimes it takes more then one event to set a precedent.
This seems like a true denial of knowledge attack.

We know what happened the last time Iran shot down a drone. While we can never be truly certain of what the future may hold, we literally do have a precedent to work from.

The only reason we can't say how the next drone shoot-down will be handled is because we don't yet know the context of the next drone shoot-down.

Maybe Iran will mass troops on the border, or stage special forces at their jumping-off point. And then the drone shoot-down is to blind enemy reconnaissance while they kick off their attack. Such a shoot-down would prompt a very different response than the kind of boundary-poking stuff we're seeing right now.

Look at how mildly the US reacted to the capture and public humiliation of its soldiers by Iran recently.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:38 AM   #345
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
That's the conventional wisdom, anyway. But I think it's a mistake to let a whole generation go by without a critical review of the weapons and their doctrine. Even if the consensus is still that they should only be used as a deterrent, we shouldn't take it for granted.

Ideally a president-elect, at least, should have dedicated extensive thought to the doctrines of MAD and NUTS, what nuclear weapons are and what they imply. He should arrive on day one of his administration with his nuclear weapons policy already in place, needing only the specific classified details of the system that will be disclosed to him once he takes office.

And even then, he should still challenge his staff, and the Pentagon, to answer the question.

Obviously Donald Trump is not that man - except for the part where he actually asks the challenging question. But I doubt any of our recent presidents had given the question much more thought than he did, before taking office. I'd rather have a president who stops to think and ask, than a president who just assumes the question is already answered and doesn't require any more thought.

---

Or maybe they have. Another possibility is that every incoming president asks some version of the question, when they're being briefed about the weapons for the first time. Maybe they all ask, but for some reason it doesn't usually get leaked and make the news.

Anyway, if they haven't asked, I think they should. If only to put the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the spot, and make him demonstrate that he, at least, has given the question serious thought, and has his own well-formed opinions about the dreadful weapons he's been entrusted with.

With which he has been entrusted.

There's a lot to be said for an incoming boss who takes some time to ask stupid questions and see what his staff has for answers.
How does any of that lead to actually using nukes? Don't worry, we'll use the damned things if we need to. That's not in question. But asking "hey, we have those things. Might as well use 'em" is childish.

Quote:
'k
Do you have any substantive response?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:39 AM   #346
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I was thinking about this... if it comes to it, and tactical nukes are the *only* way to destroy Iran's nuclear program from the air then... maybe. I think I'd rather have low-yield nukes used in anger than a ground war in Iran. Gotta get Russia's OK though to avoid ww3 though.
Whatever we can destroy with tactical nukes, we can destroy with conventional bombs. No need to get cock-blocked by Putin.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:42 AM   #347
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This seems like a true denial of knowledge attack.
<patent holder privilege> Huh?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:56 AM   #348
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,491
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How does any of that lead to actually using nukes?
It doesn't necessarily. I think you're reading his posts incorrectly. Let's go back for a moment to the question which kicked this off.

Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
We're talking about a guy who wondered what good nuclear weapons were if we didn't use them.
The question, "What good are nuclear weapons if we don't use them?" can be taken as a rhetorical question (ie, a suggestion that we should use them, and I think that's the spirit in which it was first offered sarcastically), or it can be taken as an honest question which could potentially have multiple answers. The answer could be "none, so we should use them", but it could also be "they serve purpose X (and maybe Y and Z) even without being used".

theprestige is basically saying that anyone interested in national security and nuclear strategy (especially the president) should think hard about that question as an honest question. We should not assume that the answer is already settled for all time, but nor is he suggesting that it be treated as a rhetorical question. And even a top-level answer like they serve as a deterrent contains a hell of a lot of complexity. What exactly is the extent of that deterrent? How does that deterrent match our security needs? How does it differ against different potential adversaries, and what counters might they come up with? Not only should we not just assume previous answers were correct, but even if previously correct answers may not be so eternally.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 09:58 AM   #349
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,491
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
<patent holder privilege> Huh?
I think he's suggesting that Iran is trying to limit our knowledge about conditions and events in the region. In other words, rather than testing us or escalating things, they may simply be trying to blind us.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 10:07 AM   #350
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,491
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Whatever we can destroy with tactical nukes, we can destroy with conventional bombs. No need to get cock-blocked by Putin.
A bunker buster nuke might be able to do more damage to hardened, buried structures than a conventional bunker buster. But I don't think we have any in our inventory, it would be very expensive and difficult to develop one, and the MOP is a better bunker buster than an airburst or even a surface nuke.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 10:07 AM   #351
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,293
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
This isn't the thread for it, but there's a lot that could be said on this topic. A lot that should be discussed, but isn't because too many people are taking it for granted that the discussion all happened decades ago and the issue is settled for all time. My point is simply that we shouldn't take the discussion for granted, and that everyone needs to actually think it through and settle it for themselves. So it's refreshing to me to have a president who gets to the White House and actually bothers to ask, what's the deal with nuclear weapons, anyway.
Refreshing? Like his lack of awareness of what the "nuclear triad" was during the debates? Like suggesting that the Japanese and Koreans go out and get nukes - knock yourselves out, have a ball? Jesus Christ.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 10:23 AM   #352
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,111
It's times like this that I really hate that Donald Trump is president.

Any other president I would trust to talk with his advisors and if they told him, "No, Mr. President. That wouldn't be a good idea." he would pay attention. With Trump, it would just goad him into trying to prove he was smarter than they were.

I don't know what to do in situations like this. I don't have spy agencies, and military advisors, and diplomats all getting in line to tell me all the important information to make life or death decisions. The problem is, neither does he, for all practical purposes, because he'll go off and do whatever pops into his fuzzy little head.

The idea that that man can make decisions that result in dead people, perhaps in large numbers, really scares me. But at least he borrowed a whole bunch of money delivered a tax cut.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 10:30 AM   #353
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 46,729
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Refreshing? Like his lack of awareness of what the "nuclear triad" was during the debates? Like suggesting that the Japanese and Koreans go out and get nukes - knock yourselves out, have a ball? Jesus Christ.
Hey I think Rick Perry now thinks that the DOE is important once he became its head and was in charge of maintaining nuclear weapons. Who knew that the DOE was involved in that? Certainly not republicans they were happy to have the official resign and not have a replacement after all.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 10:52 AM   #354
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
How does any of that lead to actually using nukes? Don't worry, we'll use the damned things if we need to. That's not in question.
I think maybe it is in question. I think maybe we won't use them when we need to, precisely because the question isn't actually being considered anymore.

Quote:
But asking "hey, we have those things. Might as well use 'em" is childish.
That's not what was asked, though.

Joe Scarborough volunteered the claim on his show, unsourced, unconfirmed, in 2016. The Trump campaign, of course, denied it. We don't actually know what was asked, in what context, in what tone, etc. We don't even know if it was actually asked at all.

This report from The Hill covers both Scarborough's original claim and the campaign's rebuttal:

https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...-using-nuclear

It's reasonable to be concerned about whether the President has a responsible attitude towards the use of nuclear weapons. But to be very clear about this: The basis of your concern in this particular case is "Because Joe Scarborough said so."

Quote:
Do you have any substantive response?
I don't' consider it a substantive point. Quadraginta has his opinion about Bolton's and Pompeo's states of mind. I have mine. Only time will tell which of us is more correct. Right now I have the advantage that so far neither of them has pushed us into war with Iran. Quadraginta has the advantage that we don't know what tomorrow may bring. I'm not going to get into a kremlinological slap fight over which of us is more likely correct.

Last edited by theprestige; 20th June 2019 at 11:20 AM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:05 AM   #355
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
<patent holder privilege> Huh?
Joe appears to be arguing that even though we have a prior incident to examine, it doesn't set any kind of precedent, and doesn't give us any information about how similar incidents are likely to be handled in the future. He's arguing that an observed event doesn't contribute to our body of knowledge about such events.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:12 AM   #356
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Refreshing? Like his lack of awareness of what the "nuclear triad" was during the debates? Like suggesting that the Japanese and Koreans go out and get nukes - knock yourselves out, have a ball? Jesus Christ.
I'd rather Japan and South Korea have nukes than Iran. But if those nations having nukes freaks you out so much... Are you in favor of a more aggressive approach to preventing Iran from having nukes? Because unlike Japan and South Korea, Iran is actually interested in getting nukes.

You won't support robust measures to prevent North Korea from having nukes. You won't support robust measures to prevent Iran from getting nukes. But the idea that Japan might want their own deterrent in a world where North Korea has nukes, is giving you blasphemy tourette's.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:17 AM   #357
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
It doesn't necessarily. I think you're reading his posts incorrectly. Let's go back for a moment to the question which kicked this off.



The question, "What good are nuclear weapons if we don't use them?" can be taken as a rhetorical question (ie, a suggestion that we should use them, and I think that's the spirit in which it was first offered sarcastically), or it can be taken as an honest question which could potentially have multiple answers. The answer could be "none, so we should use them", but it could also be "they serve purpose X (and maybe Y and Z) even without being used".

theprestige is basically saying that anyone interested in national security and nuclear strategy (especially the president) should think hard about that question as an honest question. We should not assume that the answer is already settled for all time, but nor is he suggesting that it be treated as a rhetorical question. And even a top-level answer like they serve as a deterrent contains a hell of a lot of complexity. What exactly is the extent of that deterrent? How does that deterrent match our security needs? How does it differ against different potential adversaries, and what counters might they come up with? Not only should we not just assume previous answers were correct, but even if previously correct answers may not be so eternally.
Ah, perhaps you're right. I was taking Trump's probable meaning with the question and didn't understand that theprestige might be taking it to mean something different.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't' consider it a substantive point. Quadraginta has his opinion about Bolton's and Pompeo's states of mind. I have mine. Only time will tell which of us is more correct.
I just want to know whether you agree that they are Iran hawks who at least on the surface seem to seek a conflict with that country.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Joe appears to be arguing that even though we have a prior incident to examine, it doesn't set any kind of precedent, and doesn't give us any information about how similar incidents are likely to be handled in the future. He's arguing that an observed event doesn't contribute to our body of knowledge about such events.
That's still not a DOK attack. Use my terms properly, dammit!!

A DOK attack is one that seeks to deny the possibility of knowledge.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:18 AM   #358
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It's times like this that I really hate that Donald Trump is president.

Any other president I would trust to talk with his advisors and if they told him, "No, Mr. President. That wouldn't be a good idea." he would pay attention. With Trump, it would just goad him into trying to prove he was smarter than they were.
I don't think this is supported by the evidence. Trump may talk this way on Twitter a lot, but when you look at his actions, they're a lot more moderate. He's had two years and plenty of excuses to show that he's so much smarter about using nuclear weapons. What he's actually done, though, is the exact same thing every other president has done.

I think there may be a substantial variance between the Donald Trump living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the Donald Trump living rent free in your head.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:26 AM   #359
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 82,565
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't think this is supported by the evidence. Trump may talk this way on Twitter a lot, but when you look at his actions, they're a lot more moderate.
I think you misspelled "lazy".

A lazy Trump, of course, is a very good thing. If he acted upon everything he claims and writes, we'd all be dead by now.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2019, 11:29 AM   #360
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,659
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Ah, perhaps you're right. I was taking Trump's probable meaning with the question and didn't understand that theprestige might be taking it to mean something different.
Yeah, I'm taking it to mean something different. I'm also taking Scarborough's original claim as deeply suspect, and not actually useful in helping us discern the mind and attitude of Donald Trump.

Quote:
I just want to know whether you agree that they are Iran hawks who at least on the surface seem to seek a conflict with that country.
Iran is already at war with us. The only question is whether to escalate it and try to end it, or let it ride at its current level of intensity. As I understand it, Bolton and Pompeo think escalation may be an appropriate next step, and we should be ready and willing to go there. I agree with that position. I also think that position is very different from the "we're at peace with Iran and Bolton/Pompeo are trying to start a war".

Quote:
That's still not a DOK attack. Use my terms properly, dammit!!

A DOK attack is one that seeks to deny the possibility of knowledge.
Ah. Well, I think Joe's argument qualifies.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:02 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.