U.S. Military Taught Officers ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[vsdoc]

Ah we are definitely not doing that. All we were discussing is some members like pakdefender challenged that US cannot win war against islam by nuking mecca/medina about 10 pages ago. I disproved all his arguments and later the topic diverted about nuking tel aviv. Yet, his points were disproved because flattening tel aviv from a military point of view would require at least 10 nukes of the calibre pakistan has. So, the conclusion is pakistan's nukes are a deterrent but definitely not a tool.

Bottom line. Thanks for summing up bro.

 

[anonymus]

No, genius! It isn't the same thing.

Here is an analogy; a powerful earthquake struck Northern regions of Pakistan in 2005, exterminating 70,000 and displacing millions.

In comparison, if 100 nukes hit Pakistan in various regions, they will end Pakistani society and make many parts of the country inhabitable. See the difference?

I based my arguments on volcanic explosions which throw massive amount of debris in atmosphere thus mimicking nuclear weapons.

If 100Nukes hit PAK in middle of war,it would lead to death of millions of people and probably social breakdown but people who are dead would only be a small fraction of total population and pakistan could be rebuilt.

PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently uninhabitable.

 

[LeGenD]

Man,

no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.

The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.

Here;

Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA says

We are not discussing Hollywood based projections here! Genius!

In the Terminator movie, humans could easily move around in nuked places. However, in real life, radioactive fallout will kill humans in nuked places.

I based my arguments on volcanic explosions which throw massive amount of debris in atmosphere thus mimicking nuclear weapons.

If 100Nukes hit PAK in middle of war,it would lead to death of millions of people and probably social breakdown but people who are dead would only be a small fraction of total population and pakistan could be rebuilt.

PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently inhabitable.

You are extremely clueless in this regard. You have no idea about the after-effects of nuclear warfare This isn't anything like a conventional conflict.

Do some research on effects of EMP, Radioactive Fallout, and Climatic Changes occurring after the nuclear strikes.

Volcanic eruptions are insufficient analogies.

PS:Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not became permanently inhabitable.

They were just two weapons and Hiroshima and Nagasaki are small cities. Societal dynamics are lot more different in modern times then they were during WWII.

Bottom line. Thanks for summing up bro.

I don't think that member S-19 qualifies to determine effectiveness of Pakistani nukes. They have effectively deterred India. Israel is very small in comparison. Focus on the research on NASA scientists instead.

 

[anonymus]

Here;

Nuclear war could reverse global warming, NASA says

We are not discussing Hollywood projections here! Genius!

2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C for 3 years.Hardly a world destroying effect...

It would only result in parts of areas of Saskatchewan growing winter wheat to adapt to spring wheat.

FYI..Wheat could tolerate -8[SUP]o[/SUP]C temperature

Do some research on roles of EMP, Radioactivity, and Climatic changes.

I know fully well what EMP,Radioactivity and Climate change means.

EMP would result in destruction of unshielded electronics of cities they fall on,Radioactivity depends on type of weapon and is exaggerated.

But it is climate change argument given by activists which is a joke.Events equivalent to a nuclear war occur in nature on annual basis.Climate would not differentiate the debris ejceted in atmosphere by a volcanic explosion and one by nuclear explosion.

If volcanic explosion of the magnitude of projected nuclear war have been unable to have significant effect on atmosphere,the impact of nukes on climate change is doubtful.

In the Terminator movie, humans could easily move around in nuked places. However, in real life, radioactive fallout will kill humans in nuked places.

I am not a fan of Sci-fi movies.My views is based on the fact that life is thriving in Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


PS:Most of the Armageddon models are based on the assumption that all the nukes would be simultaneously exploded in most favourable condition (Dry sunny day with still wind conditions and in air burst mode) and all other climatic factors required will be favourable to the model and after it is done they taking the worst projection in consideration.

 

[LeGenD]

2.5[SUP]o[/SUP]C for 3 years.Hardly a world destroying effect...

It would only result in parts of areas of Saskatchewan growing winter wheat to adapt to spring wheat.

FYI..Wheat could tolerate -8[SUP]o[/SUP]C temperature

I am not claiming that '100 Hiroshima-level bombs' can destroy the whole world. They just represent 0.03 percent of the world's combined nuclear arsenal. But they will certainly leave a noticeable impact; the scientific study makes this clear. In comparison, try to imagine the devastating effects of global nuclear war involving thousands of nuclear weapons.

I know fully well what EMP,Radioactivity and Climate change means.

EMP would result in destruction of unshielded electronics of cities they fall on,Radioactivity depends on type of weapon and is exaggerated.

But it is climate change argument given by activists which is a joke.Events equivalent to a nuclear war occur in nature on annual basis.Climate would not differentiate the debris ejceted in atmosphere by a volcanic explosion and one by nuclear explosion.

If volcanic explosion of the magnitude of projected nuclear war have been unable to have significant effect on atmosphere,the impact of nukes on climate change is doubtful.



I am not a fan of Sci-fi movies.My views is based on the fact that life is thriving in Chernobyl and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You certainly are clueless.

Genius! You cannot compare the devastation of global nuclear war (involving thousands of nuclear weapons) to minor incidents like Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

And by the way, Chernobyl is still a GHOST TOWN.

This study should enlighten you:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1984.tb06793.x/abstract

Man,

no one is arguing about fact that nuclear war would be disruptive.I am only arguing against the global Armageddon scenarios painted by activists.For those to come to fruitition,at lest 5000 MT of nukes have to go off simultaneously.

No! 1000 MT of nukes will be comparably devastating.

The social effect would be devastating and countries may have to apply martial law to deal with it but nothing that can't be remade.Wall street can operate from a straw hut also rather than fancy offices if things come to such a pass.

In case of a global nuclear war, societies will seize to exist worldwide. It will be total chaos. Large parts of the world will be inhabitable due to immense radioactive fallout. Survivors will face extremely harsh climatic conditions and will run out of food and other necessaries in some months. Humans along with many other life forms will perish within year or two at most. Rebuilding is out of question.

 

[anonymus]

And by the way, Chernobyl is still a GHOST TOWN.

This study should enlighten you:

CLIMATIC CHANGE INDUCED BY A LARGE-SCALE NUCLEAR EXCHANGE - Elsom - 2012 - Weather - Wiley Online Library

Chernobyl has thriving wildlife.It could support human habitation if required to.

The link you have provided is for a nuclear war that results in explosion of 5000-10000MT of nuclear bombs.It could have been possible in 1970 when combined capacity of world's arsenal was close to 200000MT (Soviet 70000 and US with 50000 nukes).Total the total amount of active nukes in world is close to 5000 with a lot of nukes with Russia being tactical one.The scenario is product of fantasy for today's world.

 

[LeGenD]

Chernobyl has thriving wildlife.It could support human habitation if required to.

Give this advice to Russia. And Chernobyl holds no candle to devastation caused by global nuclear war. It is not even a comparison.

The link you have provided is for a nuclear war that results in explosion of 5000-10000MT of nuclear bombs.It could have been possible in 1970 when combined capacity of world's arsenal was close to 200000MT (Soviet 70000 and US with 50000 nukes).Total the total amount of active nukes in world is close to 5000 with a lot of nukes with Russia being tactical one.The scenario is product of fantasy for today's world.

You do not check the sources properly. This is your greatest mistake.

This;

Even a 'limited' nuclear exchange, say a 1000 MT scenario which includes attacks on cities producing mass fires and generating thick smoke palls, has been suggested likely to lead to similar effects on the continental climates of the northern hemisphere.

Russia alone possesses around 1300 MT of nuclear arsenal currently.

And the nuclear arsenal of 1970s was sufficient to destroy the world many times over. Not just once. What are smoking?

 

[vsdoc]

I don't think that member S-19 qualifies to determine effectiveness of Pakistani nukes. They have effectively deterred India. Israel is very small in comparison. Focus on the research on NASA scientists instead.

The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.

S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.

You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Namely, deterrence against India.

Fullstop.

Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.

Juvenile chest thumping.

A threat without the means lacks credibility.

It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.

 

[anonymus]

Give this advice to Russia. And Chernobyl holds no candle to devastation caused by global nuclear war. It is not even a comparison.


You do not check the sources properly. This is your greatest mistake.

This;

Even a 'limited' nuclear exchange, say a 1000 MT scenario which includes attacks on cities producing mass fires and generating thick smoke palls, has been suggested likely to lead to similar effects on the continental climates of the northern hemisphere.

Russia alone possesses around 1300 MT of nuclear arsenal currently. What are smoking?

I could not copy the whole source,Don't know why copy paste in not working..........

If you read that document,it provides the name of scientists and model which have been used to simulate 10000MT nuclear weapons.

While in case of 1000MT nuclear weapon,it uses just a footnote with no mentioning of scientists and models.Its effect had only been "suggested".

And the nuclear arsenal of 1970s was sufficient to destroy the world many times over. Not just once. What are smoking?

I am not arguing against 100000+ nuclear weapons.

 

[LeGenD]

The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.

S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.

You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Namely, deterrence against India.

Fullstop.

Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.

Juvenile chest thumping.

A threat without the means lacks credibility.

It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.

My point is not about consequences. It is about the effectiveness of the nuclear arsenal.

If some members think that Pakistani nukes are just deterrents and not tools; they are only fooling themselves. Nukes are tools of destruction and this is why they have powerful deterrent effect.

I could not copy the whole source,Don't know why copy paste in not working..........

If you read that document,it provides the name of scientists and model which have been used to simulate 10000MT nuclear weapons.

While in case of 1000MT nuclear weapon,it uses just a footnote with no mentioning of scientists and models.Its effect had only been "suggested".

You have the whole paper?

Extrapolations and Interpolations are made on the basis of computerized simulations. You think that scientists would actually fire thousands of nuclear warheads on the world under the banner of 'experiment' to confirm their theories? They can get reasonable idea from computerized simulations.

 

[King Solomon]

The eyes read, but the mind sees what it wants to.

S-19 said nothing of the sort. Neither are any of us.

You yourself have spelled out the limit of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Namely, deterrence against India.

Fullstop.

Please leave the pre-emptive retaliatory bombing of Israel to the domain it belongs to.

Juvenile chest thumping.

A threat without the means lacks credibility.

It also makes others acutely aware of your own vulnerability.

Well, that is a fact. In the event that pakistan even prepares to run the LeGenDary fantasy scenario of pre-emptive strikes on tel aviv, US, Russia (maybe even China) would vaporize pakistan by a preemptive nuclear strike.

I guess he is not aware of the nuclear doctrines of major powers and arguing based on juvenile ignorance.

 

[vsdoc]

My point is not about consequences. It is about the effectiveness of the nuclear arsenal.

If some members think that Pakistani nukes are just deterrents and not tools; they are only fooling themselves. Nukes are tools of destruction and this is why they have powerful deterrent effect.

Bro, your statement shows your lack of grasp on the concept of deterrence.

When you re-emptively strike Israel you are neither deterring anyone, nor nuclear warfighting. You are simply commiting national suicide.

Nukes for deterrent arsenals were NEVER designed to be used. Because it was well UNDERSTOOD that the day you used one (whether first or second in your particular case), you hade ALREADY LOST!

Thus, nukes for you or me or China are not TOOLS.

Their deterrence lies firmly in the

1) Knowledge of their CONSEQUENCES (historical archives and scientific/mathematical modeling)

2) The PROOF that they work (your tests and the data gathered by the world scientific nuclear/seismic/radioactive watchers)

3) The ABILITY to deliver (once again, your tests, and public unambiguous demonstration of capability thereof)

These are what maintains the balance.

Not you going ahead and trying to kill a few million Israelis because and IF your holy cities were razed.

Were that to happen, you would have needed to have developed and DEMONSTRATED the means of hitting back remotely to ensure your SURVIVAL.

Forget RETALIATION.

 

[LeGenD]

Well, that is a fact. In the event that pakistan even prepares to run the fantasy scenario of pre-emptive strikes on tel aviv, US, Russia (maybe even China) would vaporize pakistan by a preemptive nuclear strike.

I guess he is not aware of the nuclear doctrines of major powers.

My debate is about devastating effects of nuclear war. It is not about nuclear doctrines.

Nuclear strikes on Israel will not just destroy Israel but will damage its neighbours. Similarly, nuclear strikes on Pakistan will not just destroy Pakistan but will damage its neighbours.

Like I said, you can decide the fate of nations but you cannot control the nuclear fallout.

 

[LeGenD]

Bro, your statement shows your lack of grasp on the concept of deterrence.

I do understand the concept of deterrence.

When you re-emptively strike Israel you are neither deterring anyone, nor nuclear warfighting. You are simply commiting national suicide.

The purpose of nuclear weapons is to prevent 'devastating war' or 'crossing the red line' in the first place.

Nukes for deterrent arsenals were NEVER designed to be used. Because it was well UNDERSTOOD that the day you used one (whether first or second in your particular case), you hade ALREADY LOST!

Agreed! Therefore, the deterrence.

Thus, nukes for you or me or China are not TOOLS.

Disagreed. Hint: tactical nukes

Here; Pakistan builds low yield nuclear capability | DAWN.COM

Their deterrence lies firmly in the

1) Knowledge of their CONSEQUENCES (historical archives and scientific/mathematical modeling)

Agreed!

2) The PROOF that they work (your tests and the data gathered by the world scientific nuclear/seismic/radioactive watchers)

Oh! Pakistani nukes DO WORK.

3) The ABILITY to deliver (once again, your tests, and public unambiguous demonstration of capability thereof)

Yes! Pakistan does have reasonable delivery systems.

These are what maintains the balance.

Yes

Not you going ahead and trying to kill a few million Israelis because and IF your holy cities were razed.

Were that to happen, you would have needed to have developed and DEMONSTRATED the means of hitting back remotely to ensure your SURVIVAL.

Forget RETALIATION.

Point is that attack on holy cities will open the Pandora box. You being an Indian will not understand this.

Attacking holy cities will be 'crossing the red line' of tolerance of all Muslims worldwide. Their is no justification for this kind of action.

 

[Developereo]

Are you telling me that military academies in Pakistan have nothing similar?

Depends what you mean by 'similar'. I accept that all militaries plan reasonable contingencies, so what do I mean by reasonable?

Declaring war on a country is reasonable.
Declaring war on an organized group of criminals (drug dealers, terrorists, etc.) is reasonable.
Declaring war on a race is NOT reasonable.
Declaring war on a religion is NOT reasonable.

So how does defending academic freedom turn to associating Al-Qaeda's ideology to that of 'mainstream' muslims'?

Lt. Dooley is making the jump in his premise, and you are defending his intellectual dishonesty by invoking freedom of speech. It is certainly freedom of speech in the same way as Hitler/Stalin/OBL's speeches were freedom of speech. Anyone can 'justify' their ideology by making ridiculous extrapolations and generalizations.

No need to present any new arguments when the current criticism about Dooley is proving to be problematic for you.

Uh huh.

Not too long ago, it was absurd for dedicated muslims to attack Americans on US soil, even after the WTC towers had a failed underground parking garage bomb, it was still absurd and quite hypothetical.

What on earth is a 'dedicated' Muslim? Just because some criminal uses that label to describe themselves makes it valid to reverse-extrapolate that blame to all Muslims?

If a self-proclaimed 'black panther' or a 'dedicated' Jew commits a crime, shall we then conclude that all blacks and Jews are automatically criminals?

Did he? The removal of his 'course', if we are to be generous and call it that, was not because of its intellectual absurdity but because of its social and political sensitivity, as in we are bending over backwards to accommodate overly sensitive muslims sensibilities. No one in the muslim world give a damn about Christian and Jewish sensitivities.

Duh! No one here is questioning the intellectual content of the course. The whole objection is about the social presumptions underlying the premise for the course.

Once again, reasonable people do not declare war on races or religions; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

Reasonable people do not willingly suspend Geneva Convention rules and deliberately target civilian centers with weapons of mass destruction; people who do so are called fanatical extremists.

The JFSC course fails the test of reasonableness on both counts.