|
Jesus, is there any situation where you've ever held a dictatorship accountable.
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
fishmech posted:No, they don't. Until they can handle MAD. It's pretty nitpicky in the context of the discussion but yes, they don't prevent regime change, they are just really good at preventing foreign military intervention that aims to enforce a regime change. A regime change can still happen through other non military means, as was the case for the soviet union.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Jesus, is there any situation where you've ever held a dictatorship accountable. please, that's no way to talk about our Noble Friends and Protectors, Mohammed bin Salman and Hamid Karzai
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:Jesus, is there any situation where you've ever held a dictatorship accountable. Yeah, I don't hold Gadaffi accountable for the historical splits in Libya that go past the Ottoman Empire. Zudgemud posted:A regime change can still happen through other non military means, as was the case for the soviet union. Yeah, but there is a difference between a regime collapsing and it is "changed", in the case of the Soviet Union, it gets tricky based on historical evidence. Maybe the CIA did negotiate with the Saudis to drop prices, but it is kind of "who knows" as far as sources. Also, in 1991, most Kremlinologists and the intelligence community was stunned at what happened. It is arguable they had sought to weaken the Soviets but didn't just expect them to impolode like they did. If anything there is some evidence that Bush was thinking about propping the Soviets up. I think it is a different case than military intervention which was pretty much predicted on leveling a regime. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 20:35 on May 31, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:please, that's no way to talk about our Noble Friends and Protectors, Mohammed bin Salman and Hamid Karzai It really says something about how little the US cares about Afghanistan these days that nobody knows Ashraf Ghani has been president for years now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:30
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It really says something about how little the US cares about Afghanistan these days that nobody knows Ashraf Ghani has been president for years now. tge dreaded double brain fart: not only is that correct, I had him confused with Morsi
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
Did assad just pull a "I'm rubber, you're glue" cuz lol I love this new world
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 20:48
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:
And if Gadaffi had tried to do that (he'd probably have failed) then he's getting nuked back. It's not a winning proposition for the lone country with only a few nukes to splash about. Ardennes posted:Did the Soviet Union collapse because of purposeful regime change? If you want to argue that fine, but you are going to have to show your work. The regime sure as poo poo changed, and the one who came out of it immediately was one friendly to the people they had nukes to defeat. It goes to show that merely holding nukes, even literally the most in the world, doesn't make a regime invincible. qkkl posted:Nukes are actually stupidly powerful. North Korea with several hundred tactical nukes would easily defeat the entire US military if the US wasn't allowed to use nukes of their own. There is no world where North Korea shoots off a hundred "tactical" nukes and the US just stands around going oh gosh I guess we can't use any of our nukes back.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:The regime sure as poo poo changed, and the one who came out of it immediately was one friendly to the people they had nukes to defeat. It goes to show that merely holding nukes, even literally the most in the world, doesn't make a regime invincible. Yeah, that is a very different thing than regime change, and no one was talking about nukes making countries literally invincible. I guess this is line of dicussion met its predictable fate. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 23:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And if Gadaffi had tried to do that (he'd probably have failed) then he's getting nuked back. It's not a winning proposition for the lone country with only a few nukes to splash about. The aim in a nuclear war isn't to win, it's to make the victory not worth it for the other guys. It's why it's called deterrence.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:tge dreaded double brain fart: not only is that correct, I had him confused with Morsi lol owned edit for content: my girlfriend's cousin of some flavor got elected as a city councilman or something in bumfuck rural Egypt in the MB wave after order was restored by glorious president sisi, he was picked up and lightly tortured but they concluded he knew nothing and nobody useful so they released him with a warning to never have a single passing thought about politics again Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:It really says something about how little the US cares about Afghanistan these days that nobody knows Ashraf Ghani has been president for years now. is he good or bad? let me rephrase: how bad is he?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:13
|
|
|
Flavahbeast posted:He could have chosen the route where he allows political reforms instead of blaming the protests on hallucinogenic Nescafe and launching a crackdown. Ben Ali is still doing just fine afaik funny you should say that, his human rights trial in absentia just started  lol at Saudi Arabia ever extraditing him though
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:17
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:The aim in a nuclear war isn't to win, it's to make the victory not worth it for the other guys. It's why it's called deterrence. So far the only nuclear war fought was in fact won. Deterrence doesn't work when you can't actually deter the other side. That's precisely why I brought up mutually assured destruction. poo poo look at the example you tried to use, where Libya gets to drop one bomb and then the whole country got obliterated because all the other countries would retaliate. There's a clear winner in that hypothetical war and it ain't Gadafi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
fishmech posted:poo poo look at the example you tried to use, where Libya gets to drop one bomb and then the whole country got obliterated because all the other countries would retaliate. There's a clear winner in that hypothetical war and it ain't Gadafi. He already died, so it's hard to see how it could get worse for him. Regime change is putting the regime in a position where they have nothing to lose, where using WMD, even if it provokes a devastating response, might be thinkable. Again, this is a guy the invading countries justified overthrowing becuase he was supposedly totally irrational, so I don't see them risking a major city on his forbearance as they do their best to kill him. Even a 1% chance of losing Paris is way too important for France to give a poo poo what he does to Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He already died, so it's hard to see how it could get worse for him. Regime change is putting the regime in a position where they have nothing to lose, where using WMD, even if it provokes a devastating response, might be thinkable. Again, this is a guy the invading countries justified overthrowing becuase he was supposedly totally irrational, so I don't see them risking a major city on his forbearance as they do their best to kill him. Even a 1% chance of losing Paris is way too important for France to give a poo poo what he does to Benghazi. Yeah, this. But mostly, the whole concept of deterrence is largely untested. It worked* during the Cold War. How well does it work with much smaller, independent states? Its an open question how it would go down. *worked in that we're still here, though nukes were ordered to be used a couple times and it was only through breakdown of systems that armageddon was averted. So maybe not concepts to rely on too heavily...
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 00:46
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The core issue with Libya is that it probably shouldn't be a unified nation state, and only existed that way because of the Italians and then Gadaffi. It probably would have made more sense to peaceful split the country or otherwise it could only stay unified through force. The uprising against him wasn't really split, the west stayed comparatively quiet at first (aside from y'know the third largest city in the country, Misrata). And then it didn't. And western rebels are the ones who took over Tripoli and pushed Gaddafi and company into Sirte in the middle. The only reason the west started quieter was because the capital and main operations for Gaddafi were there, as opposed to Benghazi and the east which had the ol' "Emperor is far away" benefit going for them. As it played out eventually the west riled up too, and Gaddafi's power there evaporated insanely quickly. Sinteres posted:He already died, so it's hard to see how it could get worse for him. Because he was some sort of stubborn megalomaniac idiot rather than a pure kleptocrat, and stuck around long after it was safe to. Like someone said, the Tunisian guy is living in sweet Saudi retirement. Grape fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:04
|
|
|
Grape posted:Because he was some sort of stubborn megalomaniac idiot rather than a pure kleptocrat, and stuck around long after it was safe to. Right, which is why he'd be the kind of leader they couldn't count on not to use a nuke out of spite once he was facing death anyway. Interventionists like to pretend every dictator they're overthrowing is Hitler, and Hitler for one would have been more than willing to engage in a nuclear exchange if he'd had the capability at the end of WW2, since he thought Germany/the German people deserved to burn for failing to win. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So far the only nuclear war fought was in fact won. If Libya dropped one nuke because foreign countries were trying to overthrow the regime, then the leaders of whichever country ate that nuke would be executed for treason, for viewing the lives of the citizens in a foreign country above the lives of their own citizens. This would deter any country from attempting a military intervention on humanitarian grounds against a nuclear power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
Grape posted:The uprising against him wasn't really split, the west stayed comparatively quiet at first (aside from y'know the third largest city in the country, Misrata). And then it didn't. And western rebels are the ones who took over Tripoli and pushed Gaddafi and company into Sirte in the middle. My point wasn't necessarily one side of the country really loved Gaddafi (probably more ambivalent in the beginning), but that Libya itself is an artificial construction and the civil war has shown this pretty well. It is a Humpty-dumpty situation. Also, Ben Ali again had a much different relationship with the West than other strongmen with hostile relationships with the West. Gadaffi wasn't just going to be allowed to rest in peace, he would have been shipped back to Libya in chains. He isn't a nice guy but let's be honest about geopolitics here. Mubarak didn't make it out in time, but the worm turned in Egypt anyway. (It is also why the Shah in the states until he kicked it.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So far the only nuclear war fought was in fact won. It wasn't a nuclear war; it was a conventional war that saw surprise use of nuclear weapons by one, and only one, side. At that point, nuclear deterrence did not exist because 1. it was a brand-new secret weapon and the sheer magnitude of its power, as well as its long terms consequences, were not really known or understood then and 2. the belligerent that used it did not have it when the war was started. Now if nuclear weapons had been developed before WW2 started and Japan had opened the hostilities by nuking Pearl Harbor, that would have been a nuclear war. quote:poo poo look at the example you tried to use, where Libya gets to drop one bomb and then the whole country got obliterated because all the other countries would retaliate. There's a clear winner in that hypothetical war and it ain't Gadafi. Hypothesis: Qaddafi, still alive as the dictator of Libya has a nuclear weapon. Western powers want to kill him. Scenario #1: Qaddafi doesn't use his bomb. Western powers flatten him with conventional weapons, Qaddafi ends up lynched gruesomely. Scenario #2: Qaddafi uses his bomb. Western powers flatten with with nukes, Qaddafi is vaporized. From Qaddafi's viewpoint, either way, he gets killed. In scenario #2, however, he gets to make victory taste very bitter to his enemies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
It is probably also why Iran is going to resist further dismantling of its civilian programs or its missile systems. They aren't building nukes, but it is quite obvious they want to retain the ability to get a deterrence online if they need to (if they can before the West can go after them is more debatable or if Israel' has the ability to knock out their program on their own). (I wonder if Turkey is thinking the same thing looking at their civilian program.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:40
|
|
|
Also a side note about nukes. It only takes one very big thermonuclear bomb to wipe out all life on earth if it's made to maximize nuclear fallout. An unhinged, suicidal dictator with one nuke could very cheaply make that one nuke unimaginably powerful by just adding cheap lithium deuturide fuel so it would act as a doomsday device.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
qkkl posted:If Libya dropped one nuke because foreign countries were trying to overthrow the regime, then the leaders of whichever country ate that nuke would be executed for treason, for viewing the lives of the citizens in a foreign country above the lives of their own citizens. That's not how people work. There have been loads of rulers throughout history who got many thousands of their own people killed and faced no consequences afterwards. As an example, Gadaffi ruled Libya for nearly 40 years after his attempted invasion of Chad
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Also a side note about nukes. It only takes one very big thermonuclear bomb to wipe out all life on earth if it's made to maximize nuclear fallout. An unhinged, suicidal dictator with one nuke could very cheaply make that one nuke unimaginably powerful by just adding cheap lithium deuturide fuel so it would act as a doomsday device. Citation needed on this one, I think. From all I’ve read, a nuclear winter is pretty damned hard to pull off. I mean, we had a shitload of high-yield nuclear tests during the Cold War, and they barely had any significant environmental impact.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:50
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:He already died, so it's hard to see how it could get worse for him. Regime change is putting the regime in a position where they have nothing to lose, where using WMD, even if it provokes a devastating response, might be thinkable. Again, this is a guy the invading countries justified overthrowing becuase he was supposedly totally irrational, so I don't see them risking a major city on his forbearance as they do their best to kill him. Even a 1% chance of losing Paris is way too important for France to give a poo poo what he does to Benghazi. Except nope, this is not how things work. Also you're doing a lot of writing for say alternate universe Emmaneual Macron's justification letter for why the French used a nuclear missile to demolish Gadaffi's compound. "Even a 1% chance of losing Paris to known terrorist state Libya is just too much" he says. qkkl posted:Also a side note about nukes. It only takes one very big thermonuclear bomb to wipe out all life on earth if it's made to maximize nuclear fallout. An unhinged, suicidal dictator with one nuke could very cheaply make that one nuke unimaginably powerful by just adding cheap lithium deuturide fuel so it would act as a doomsday device. This is false. For starters once you make a bomb big enough, most of the material and force gets directly ejected through the Earth's atmosphere into space. qkkl posted:If Libya dropped one nuke because foreign countries were trying to overthrow the regime, then the leaders of whichever country ate that nuke would be executed for treason, for viewing the lives of the citizens in a foreign country above the lives of their own citizens. This would deter any country from attempting a military intervention on humanitarian grounds against a nuclear power. This makes no sense at all. Cat Mattress posted:It wasn't a nuclear war; it was a conventional war that saw surprise use of nuclear weapons by one, and only one, side. At that point, nuclear deterrence did not exist because 1. it was a brand-new secret weapon and the sheer magnitude of its power, as well as its long terms consequences, were not really known or understood then and 2. the belligerent that used it did not have it when the war was started. Now if nuclear weapons had been developed before WW2 started and Japan had opened the hostilities by nuking Pearl Harbor, that would have been a nuclear war. Every nuclear war is going to start out conventional. So what you're saying is Qadaffi needs to be taken out before he gets a nuclear weapon, and certainly once he has one we must strike immediately. After all, you're saying he's guaranteed to recklessly use a nuke!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:52
|
|
|
fishmech posted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb Wikipedia posted:Theoretically, a device containing 510 metric tons of Co-59 can spread 1 g of the material to each square km of the Earth's surface (510,000,000 km2). If one assumes that all of the material is converted to Co-60 at 100 percent efficiency and if it is spread evenly across the Earth's surface, it is possible for a single bomb to kill every person on Earth. Just because most of the fallout initially gets launched into space doesn't mean it stays up there, it would sprinkle back down on the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 01:57
|
|
|
Ok all the tinpot dictator needs to do is build a 100% efficient nuclear bomb that contains 512 metric tons of an isotope of cobalt. Deterrence!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
qkkl posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb Yeah that's not going to get anywhere close to killing life on Earth, and the entire premise rests on perfectly uniform distribution and isotope conversion, which is not possible. And requires you to have first made a "bomb" that is ~1.3 cubic miles just in cobalt. before adding any physics package or other explosives. Christ next you're going to tell me Tom Clancy books are nonfiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:05
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Ok all the tinpot dictator needs to do is build a 100% efficient nuclear bomb that contains 512 metric tons of an isotope of cobalt. At current prices 512 metric tons of cobalt is around $46 million, quite affordable. fishmech posted:Yeah that's not going to get anywhere close to killing life on Earth, and the entire premise rests on perfectly uniform distribution and isotope conversion, which is not possible. And requires you to have first made a "bomb" that is ~1.3 cubic miles just in cobalt. before adding any physics package or other explosives. According to my calculations 512 metric tons of cobalt is only around 58 cubic meters. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=512+metric+tons+of+cobalt edit: huh, wolfram alpha says it's only $18 million, I need a better broker. qkkl fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jun 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
qkkl posted:At current prices 512 metric tons of cobalt is around $46 million, quite affordable. Now consider the size and complexity of a bomb that can be perfectly efficient with that big an impurity in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:09
|
|
|
fake edit: yeah its cube less than 4m to the side. Its still a huge mass to attempt to build a nuclear weapon around and still not a good idea, but yeah within the realm of possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:16
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:Now consider the size and complexity of a bomb that can be perfectly efficient with that big an impurity in it. The cobalt goes around the actual bomb. Similar reasoning to why in the Tsar bomb they replaced the uranium outer shell with lead to reduce fallout.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
qkkl posted:The cobalt goes around the actual bomb. Similar reasoning to why in the Tsar bomb they replaced the uranium outer shell with lead to reduce fallout. That's not going to get you uniform distribution around the earth, or really any of it at all. That's going to get you a high dose to a small area and ever dwindling doses following the winds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:22
|
|
|
Get out of our clubhouse nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Except nope, this is not how things work. Nobody knows how things work because nobody's invaded a country with nuclear weapons with the purpose of destroying their government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:38
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Nobody knows how things work because nobody's invaded a country with nuclear weapons with the purpose of destroying their government. I think you will find that according to fishmech he knows literally everything about how everything works stop quoting fishmech
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:40
|
|
|
Sinteres posted:Nobody knows how things work because nobody's invaded a country with nuclear weapons with the purpose of destroying their government. Arab nations invaded Israel at least once after Israel had nuclear weapons, actually.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So far the only nuclear war fought was in fact won.  Nuclear war is when both sides have nukes. Remind everyone in the thread where Japan's nukes were. I don find it funny how liberals are trying now to defend using nukes on other countries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 13:21 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:
Nah, any war where nukes are used is a nuclear war. Cool how you make up random arguments that aren't happening though. Unless you're calling the Qadaffi Defense Krew liberals now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2018 02:54
|
|