EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1986
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24793 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:16 KwarK wrote: The most comparable events are the sinking of the Thresher and the Scorpion. Environmental monitoring of the area around the wreckages shows low releases of radioactivity, with fuel remaining intact, preventing the release of enriched uranium, fission products, or transuranics. The piping systems release water contaminated with Cobalt-60 and other activated corrosion products, with an effective half life of about 5 years. The crud mostly just sits there until it decays away. Similar results are found in environmental monitoring performed on sunken Russian subs by European partners, I believe.Water is a very good insulator for radiation and dilution the amount of water in the oceans is basically the best way of dealing with radiation. So it’s probably fine, but when Micronesia posts correcting me I will defer to his professional expertise. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:25 KwarK wrote: Which is probably what they were saying in 2002 before the games. After all they’d learned a lot about fighting low tech armies since Vietnam. The weakness illustrated by the games wasn’t an inability to cope with a specific tactic, it was an institutional failure to acknowledge the potential for defeat. Except that nobody has really succeeded in sinking an aircraft carrier have they? You are conflating occupation with whatever kind of thing the military views as victory in a battle simulation. The weakness illustrated by the games was that an American general who understood American war plans and technology in 2002 could come up with a surprising strategy to kill 20,000 American soldiers within the confines of a war game. Seems nearly worthless to me. Bayesian value only one iota above that of common noise. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:25 Simberto wrote: I think that that discussion is pretty pointless. Even if the US were to completely decimate the Iranian military on day 1, does anyone see a better result than Iraq here? And did you really pull out of Iraq so you could do the same thing a country over? If your best-case scenario is hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, a pointless guerilla war producing casualties over a decade, further destabilisation of a region which you already did your best to destabilize leading to more problems for everyone, and basically 0 positives, is it really important how well the war at the start of all this goes? Yeah this is my feeling as well. In addition to Iraq we are also nearing 20 years of war in Afghanistan. But as always the devastation of the war is never on American soil so people don't care. I liked Tulsi Gabbard for making opposing war the center of her campaign. But she has been a pariah, I'm unsure how much because of that stance. It's hard for me to understand who are the people constantly pushing us to war and what are their motivations. Is it too simple to conclude that it is people enriching themselves? | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:25 Simberto wrote: I think that that discussion is pretty pointless. Even if the US were to completely decimate the Iranian military on day 1, does anyone see a better result than Iraq here? And did you really pull out of Iraq so you could do the same thing a country over? If your best-case scenario is hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, a pointless guerilla war producing casualties over a decade, further destabilisation of a region which you already did your best to destabilize leading to more problems for everyone, and basically 0 positives, is it really important how well the war at the start of all this goes? Eh, like iraq, iran isnt selling their oil to the US so lots of "opportunities" to be made here | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35174 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:23 schaf wrote: Isn't it important to define victory first? What is it, destroy a military that will hide in the mountains until you run out of bombs? Getting rid of the regime is most likely. How do you do it? Problem with that is then you're playing a finite game against an infinite opponent. | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:25 Simberto wrote: I think that that discussion is pretty pointless. Even if the US were to completely decimate the Iranian military on day 1, does anyone see a better result than Iraq here? And did you really pull out of Iraq so you could do the same thing a country over? If your best-case scenario is hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, a pointless guerilla war producing casualties over a decade, further destabilisation of a region which you already did your best to destabilize leading to more problems for everyone, and basically 0 positives, is it really important how well the war at the start of all this goes? In this case the US doesn't even have local population support like in parts of Iraq. Guerrilla warfare with the entire country against you would just result in Vietnam part 2. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:14 KwarK wrote: I don’t think it’s an absolute guarantee, it’s simply that the last war game (to my knowledge) they tried ended in a resounding Iranian victory. It’s absolutely relevant, just as any other historical data is relevant to predictions. Additionally the criticisms leveled at the US military as a result of the games were that they were institutionally incapable of considering the risk of US defeat as a result of asymmetrical warfare. That doesn’t create much assurance that the weaknesses revealed will be addressed, and nor does the ongoing failure to achieve any kind of victory in the other Middle Eastern theatres. 1) The general that exposed these problems (the one running the Red team) was a retired American general. 2) This war game was 18 years ago. All high-level military positions rotate (as required by law) every several years, so none of those individuals are in charge now. I don't have an incredible amount of faith in the old, white, crotchety career officers that have run the military since pretty much ever, but an 18-year-old war game run by people who are long out of power is still not that reliable of an indicator of current capabilities. The military has been focused on being a reactionary force dependent on overwhelming force. Our adaptation to asymmetric warfare and blended populations was "kill em all" The thing they learned was classify anyone that looks over 16 an enemy combatant and then Trump just said fuck it "take out their families" GH, I told you that you need to stop talking out of your ass about the military. You continue to make yourself look ignorant. It's really sad at this point. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
My guess it it would be a lot of long distance missiles until Iran concedes, lmao | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24264 Posts
On January 04 2020 03:58 Stratos_speAr wrote: GH, I told you that you need to stop talking out of your ass about the military. You continue to make yourself look ignorant. It's really sad at this point. There were links you removed from that quote The thing they learned was classify anyone that looks over 16 an enemy combatant and then Trump just said fuck it "take out their families" I can concede it's not "anyone that looks over 16" specifically, but: in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent If your issue was the nature of the military I'd need you to make an actual argument for what I'm misportraying | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:11 franzji wrote: You guys forgot to mention that a war game is just a game. A real war with Iran will look nothing like what the little game from 20 years ago would look like. My guess it it would be a lot of long distance missiles until Iran concedes, lmao whats so funny about destroying countries and killing people? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:21 ImFromPortugal wrote: whats so funny about destroying countries and killing people? Probably the same thing that makes it funny when people get upset about the same. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12502 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:31 NewSunshine wrote: Probably the same thing that makes it funny when people get upset about the same. People who live too far away from where you live aren't really people, they're just silhouettes and statistics. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:36 Nebuchad wrote: People who live too far away from where you live aren't really people, they're just silhouettes and statistics. Yep. It's easy to demonize people and pat yourself on the back when they get killed if you never have to actually see them. I had the pleasure of being introduced, by my partner, to a pair of shows, "I'll Have What Phil's Having" and "Somebody Feed Phil". They're basically the same show, but it's ultimately about how the country of the episode has amazing food, and in general is just beautiful, and interesting, and amazing, and that the people in them are the same as him and us. And a lot of the countries Phil goes to are ones I know people here look down on. The barriers we throw up to ignore these people don't have to be there. I don't get it when people do it. Is it easy? Sure. Is it worth it? Fuck no. I may not still know a lot about foreign affairs, but I'm sure not cool with pretending like they're any worse than we are. Ultimately, everyone just wants to mind their own business. | ||
|
franzji
United States583 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:21 ImFromPortugal wrote: whats so funny about destroying countries and killing people? that's not the funny part, the funny part is how different it would actually go vs what a little war game would be. | ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On January 04 2020 04:11 franzji wrote: You guys forgot to mention that a war game is just a game. A real war with Iran will look nothing like what the little game from 20 years ago would look like. My guess it it would be a lot of long distance missiles until Iran concedes, lmao It's so simplistic you can't expect to be taken seriously. If it comes to that, the Iranian army will just blend in the civilian world, leading the US to commit an enormous amount of war crimes, to give them the bad role. There's a reason you don't just annihilate a country from afar. US public opinion doesn't like this kind of war. Usually you just ensure air superiority, blast all vital infrastructure, military or civilian : airports, known bases and depots, senior generals and officials, power plants and all that stuff, to overload the resiliency capabilities of that specific country, let it sit a while, and then invade. That aforementioned war game was an exercice meant to validate the military strategy/doctrine for at least the following decade. So it was a general repetition for how the US would wage war. I guess that doctrine has changed in the years since, but it's not "just a war game". If there is one enemy Iran has prepared for strategically wise, it's the US. It's also not alone, but the extent to which Russia and China would get involved (at least diplomatically or covertly, I doubt they would risk open confrontation) is also an unknown. It's also not funny, but it was already mentioned. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5021 Posts
On January 03 2020 21:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: It makes you laugh that people are saddened or angry by the prospect of another (potentially worse) invasion of Iraq happening destroying the lives of millions of people? As I think my follow up makes clear, what makes me laugh is the inevitable "President did X to distract from Y." As I've said before, Trump, due to the way he campaigns, is a Republican president who would gain little to no benefit for getting more involved in that region. The issue itself is very serious and will have consequences. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Looks like Iran doesn't think escalation is a good idea. Going the legal/diplomatic route, which or course means nothing, but glad that's what they are doing. | ||
| ||
