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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


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 Today, 10:59 AM   #561
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
That's literally defending him. That defense is justifiable to mount in cases where the false accusations are indeed false, but that is still a defense.

Let me go full Godwin with and example: If someone said that Hitler killed every Jew alive in 1944, I would be defending Hitler from that accusation to say it is false. That doesn't mean I support or defend Hitler en total, but that is a defense of that accusation. It isn't how we normally think of the word 'defense', but it is technically true.
Oh, I think we're using a more narrow definition of "defend" here.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 Today, 11:45 AM   #562
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 10,334
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Option (4) That Emily's Cat is not defending Trump at all, but is pointing out that false accusations are false and that other accusations are not at present supported by solid evidence.
Ahem, this overlooks that when you defend / devil's advocate / high-horse whatever you want to call it, you repeatedly foist misinformation favorable to Trump, and you're unwilling/unable to own your fact-challenged claims.

e.g. "ordinary Russian citizens".
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 Today, 11:50 AM   #563
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,126
Yes, that's what I was refering to when I talked about a more narrow definition. The apparent willingness to phrase and present things in a way that is very favourable towards Trump that is seen as a defense in the stricter sense.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon 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 Today, 12:46 PM   #564
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,852
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
BBC World service radio programme about this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05951pc

TL DNL It would be bad.

If it was limited to conventional weapons, then estimates are for about 30,000 casualties in the first day, and millions of refugees by the time the DPRK is defeated.
What a *********** pile of garbage. It's total fiction that the North Korean army would be able to muster an effective invasion. We have total air supremacy, and the South Korean army is well-trained as well, with heavy fortifications.

You're also talking about a North Korean army where the average soldier is undernourished, poorly trained, and probably poorly motivated. Their communications equipment is probably obsolete and will be disrupted quickly.

The only material threat is from long-range artillery and a nuclear-weapon equipped missile. It's not clear that they have the latter yet, or that, if they did, they could fire one off without exposing it to our air power for several hours.

As for the former, long-range guns can only fire about once per minute. Once they fire, their position can be tracked by radar from the trajectory of the shell. This is going to be a one and done proposition, especially since the gun crew would be highly motivated to skedaddle once they see their compadres going up in a ball of flames less than a minute after they fire.
sunmaster14 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 Today, 12:57 PM   #565
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,265
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
As for the former, long-range guns can only fire about once per minute. Once they fire, their position can be tracked by radar from the trajectory of the shell. This is going to be a one and done proposition, especially since the gun crew would be highly motivated to skedaddle once they see their compadres going up in a ball of flames less than a minute after they fire.
You do realize, I hope, that North Korea has not only regular guns, but also rocket artillery delivery systems?

Also, that much of their artillery is self-propelled? So it's not still in the same place after that firing.

Also, check out https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...m-1978-170.htm with some info on one of NK's long-range artillery pieces:
Quote:
According to one report, a South Korean security analyst suggested that DPRK artillery pieces of calibers 170mm and 240mm "could fire 10,000 rounds per minute to Seoul and its environs." The number of Koksan guns is not publicly reported, but it is reliably reported that North Korea has about 500 long-range artillery tubes within range of Seoul, double the levels of a the mid-1990s. Large caliber self propelled artillery pieces typically have a sustained rate of fire of between four and eight rounds per minute. This suggests a total rate of fire of artillery alone of between 2,000 and 4,000 rounds per minute. The DPRK's two hundred 240mm MRLs fire either 12 or 22 rounds, providing a maximum single salvo of no more than 4,400 rounds.
It's obvious you have no clue of what you speak. See the highlighted.
Hellbound 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 Today, 12:59 PM   #566
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,387
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Do you know how ICBMs work? There are no cheap seats. Once you can put a missile into a ballistic phase (i.e. with no rocket engines running) with enough altitude and speed to reach another continent, then you can reach anywhere on Earth.

In any case, I am confident that we can take out North Korea's missiles in a first strike. The only damage they can cause is with artillery aimed at Seoul. And even then, they're only going to get off one shot per gun before the gun is destroyed through counterbattery fire.
Remind yourself of op your confidence while you're stepping over the bodies of our aliens.
Craig4 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 Today, 01:11 PM   #567
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,852
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You do realize, I hope, that North Korea has not only regular guns, but also rocket artillery delivery systems?

Also, that much of their artillery is self-propelled? So it's not still in the same place after that firing.
It's not just a question of being in the same place. It's a question of being spotted. Self-propelled guns aren't going to be able to move very far in a minute, it won't be able to fire while it's moving, and it will be easy to see while it's moving. More importantly, the soldiers manning the thing will know how exposed they will be after firing. They're not going to be very motivated to set up for a second shot.

Quote:
Also, check out https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...m-1978-170.htm with some info on one of NK's long-range artillery pieces:
That's really old information. I had heard the 10,000 rounds per minute thing decades ago. I've since heard that it is total BS.

Quote:
It's obvious you have no clue of what you speak. See the highlighted.
Your source doesn't actually say what you think it says, since it does not restrict its description to long-range guns.

This site claims the rate of fire for North Korean's main long-range gun is 1-2 rounds per 5 minutes.
sunmaster14 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 Today, 01:13 PM   #568
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,852
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Remind yourself of op your confidence while you're stepping over the bodies of our aliens.
Wut? Aliens?
sunmaster14 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 Today, 01:22 PM   #569
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 11,265
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Your source doesn't actually say what you think it says, since it does not restrict its description to long-range guns.

This site claims the rate of fire for North Korean's main long-range gun is 1-2 rounds per 5 minutes.
Did you read your source? Specifically, the link at the bottom showing the system NK replaced it with? The one that the link I posted provides more detail on?
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m1989.htm

The numbers in those names are the years they were first observed. You were positing almost 40-year old systems as somehow representative of what they currently have.
Hellbound 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 Today, 01:33 PM   #570
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 15,143
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
What a *********** pile of garbage. It's total fiction that the North Korean army would be able to muster an effective invasion. We have total air supremacy, and the South Korean army is well-trained as well, with heavy fortifications.

You're also talking about a North Korean army where the average soldier is undernourished, poorly trained, and probably poorly motivated. Their communications equipment is probably obsolete and will be disrupted quickly.

The only material threat is from long-range artillery and a nuclear-weapon equipped missile. It's not clear that they have the latter yet, or that, if they did, they could fire one off without exposing it to our air power for several hours.

As for the former, long-range guns can only fire about once per minute. Once they fire, their position can be tracked by radar from the trajectory of the shell. This is going to be a one and done proposition, especially since the gun crew would be highly motivated to skedaddle once they see their compadres going up in a ball of flames less than a minute after they fire.
I too doubt that the DPRK would be able to invade. However their current conventional (along with chemical and presumably biological weapons) would be enough to cause a lot of civilian casualties and cause severe damage to Seoul.

They don't need to invade. They just need to be able to threaten Seoul. The problem comes when the South then has to invade the North once the war has started.

That is when the refugee crisis occurs. It would not be like reunifying Germany, it would be far more costly for the South and China.
__________________
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 Today, 02:16 PM   #571
sunmaster14
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 9,852
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
Did you read your source? Specifically, the link at the bottom showing the system NK replaced it with? The one that the link I posted provides more detail on?
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m1989.htm

The numbers in those names are the years they were first observed. You were positing almost 40-year old systems as somehow representative of what they currently have.
So far you have not provided any sources that show a rate of fire for long-range guns that is greater than 1-2 rounds per 5 minutes, let alone the 1 round per minute that I posited.

As for the upgraded guns, they carry a total of only 12 rounds. That sort of implies a rather slow rate of fire, although it's not definitive. I doubt that gun technology could evolve so quickly that you could go from 1-2 rounds per 5 minutes to the 4-8 rounds per minute as you imply. Limitations probably include both the weight of the shell (with propellant) and the heating of the barrel.
sunmaster14 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 Today, 02:31 PM   #572
phiwum
Philosopher
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,192
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
It is possible to be guilty by association if that association contributed to the rise of something like Trump.
Sorry, do you have something in mind?

Sounds like the association itself isn't the source of guilt, but rather the effects of one's actions.
phiwum 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 Today, 07:05 PM   #573
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,343
President Donald Trump on Thursday said Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is “getting very high marks,” despite his increasingly autocratic behavior.

“It’s a great honor and privilege — because he’s become a friend of mine — to introduce President Erdogan of Turkey,” Trump told reporters. “He’s running a very difficult part of the world. He’s involved very, very strongly and, frankly, he’s getting very high marks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...-praise-242986

This is why some of us will never forgive you.
Fudbucker 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

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 07:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.