It's 5 'til Midnight. Are YOU in your nuclear shelter yet?

[Evans]

Don't give much of a fuck, frankly. Would be nice if the US started minding its own business so the world doesn't come to an end, though.

[polobunny]

*rolls dice*
HELL YEAH, a fi-- oh no wait, it's a TLR.

[Mistral]

Simply, it will not happen. Seriously. Whichever "it" in your post you think I'm referring to.
1. What is Bush going to invade Iran with? Most of his ground forces are rather tied up at the moment. Certainly, he could fly in and plaster good swaths of the nation, but there's not much point.
1a. Who would launch a nuclear strike over Iran? Russia has some interests in the area, but they are allies of convenience. Iran and Russia have some issues over the Caspian Sea, and there are complaints about the lack of progess on Bushehr. They are large trading partners, and have some accord regarding dangerous neighbors, but they are not formal military allies. Iran itself may develop nuclear weaponry at some point in the future, but it will not have the range or numbers to do the damage you suggest for quite some time. Even China, with a space program, doesn't have the range to do serious damage to America on most of their arsenal.
2. Putin is bluffing like crazy. Rather, bluffing is not the most accurate term. He is engaging in rhetoric for domestic consumption, since it sells so well. Concerns about the American missile shield in East Europe and Putin's own plans for more advanced missile technology are overrated: advancement of offense and defense to counteract each other has been a cornerstone of all military science advance. With nuclear weaponry, the greatest shield has never been SDI, but MAD.
3. The decision for the rubric is very subjective. Note that when the Vietnam War was in full swing and proliferation was reaching nations like France and China, osteniably aligned respectively with West and East but in actuality wild-cards with their own political aggrandizement in mind, the time was 7 minutes. When America and the USSR are modernizing and India conducts a successful test, the time is 9 minutes. Four years later, when Pakistan tests its own and the threat of a localized nuclear exchange becomes apparent for the first time since the 1950s, the time hasn't even reached 7 minutes - similarly, when the two nations conduct simultaneous tests to intimidate the other in 1998, the time is still 9 minutes. In other words, take it with a very large grain of salt, or SALT, if you will.

[Corey]

My, whatever do you mean? G.E.C.K.?

Garden of Eden Creation Kit. noob.

[Dr Mario]

http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/

For those of you unaware, the Doomsday Clock measures just how close mankind is to annihilation (the proverbial midnight). Half an hour to midnight means that there are purple llamas frolicking around prairies of sunshine in slowmo with happy music in the background. One minute to midnight, however, means that we're playing Russian porno-roulette with epileptic crocodiles, and the nuclear launch authority button is strapped to each of the contestants' dicks. (Russian porno-roulette is Russian roulette, except with 6 women giving oral instead of a revolver. The catch? One is epileptic, and the room has strobes.)

The current 5 minutes to midnight comes from Bush's Iranian nuclear threats, plus Putin's announcement of technology to foil the United States Missile Defense Network. The closest we've ever been to midnight was back when the hydrogen bomb was being tested. That was a 2-minute warning. The furthest was 17-minute warning, which was set in '91 at the dissolution of the USSR and thus the _political_ end of the Cold War.

I am thinking that Bush will end up invading Iran towards the end of his term, and get us nuked in the process. Along with that, nukes hitting the US equals four times as many nukes being shipped out, so nuclear apocalypse is likely. With that apocalypse will bring about the end of the Information Age and revert us back to the Stone Age. Electronics will be completely destroyed with the resulting EM shockwave from all those nuclear blasts, and the entire collection of accomplishments by homo sapiens over the past couple of million years will be reduced to cloud one, yet again. World order will collapse, and humans will band into primal tribes fighting each other for plots of ash-covered wasteland.

What to do? Simple. Get printouts of the schematics of every electronic device on Earth, then stockpile them in a massive underground bunker out in the middle of nowhere. Then, you can rebuild the human civilization from those. Then, horde food, water, and gas, and hole up in your mom's basement with a shotty, some shells, and the doors barricaded. A generator might be useful as well, folks.

The question to be discussed is this; how do you feel about the nuclear noose tightening, and are you prepared for it? I'm interested to see responses to this.

This isn't right. Hell, I can't even call it wrong. It's so far from reality that I can only assume Bunneh has unknowingly crossed over from a parallel universe.

[EGGO]

For fuck's sake...

Rabbit, you wouldn't happen to be at a house would you?

[_M_]

Garden of Eden Creation Kit. noob.

I never played the game. Get over it.

This topic is even more far fetched than some virgin asshole pouring hot butter on some broads cooter. The U.S. wouldn't allow any other country on the planet produce it's own nuclear weapons without sufficient defense from said nuclear weapons, if in fact someone tried to attack us.

And for anybody to attack us would be their last mistake.

[Dr Mario]

And for anybody to attack us would be their last mistake.

A full-blown nuclear attack from a state adversary would also be the end of the US.

[_M_]

A full-blown nuclear attack from a state adversary would also be the end of the US.

I doubt it. I trust in our counter measures. I mean, to publicly air a "new" missile defense on a television show (Future Weapons) was just a ploy. It only broke the surface on our nations actual defense systems.

The truth is we don't actually know, as a civilian, how much depth we have in defensive systems.

Which state adversary has ballistic technology to strike any where in the world like we do?

[Dr Mario]

I doubt it. I trust in our counter measures. I mean, to publicly air a "new" missile defense on a television show (Future Weapons) was just a ploy. It only broke the surface on our nations actual defense systems.

The truth is we don't actually know, as a civilian, how much depth we have in defensive systems.

Without any evidence to the contrary, logic would indicate that, given the history and current actions of the US government, they'd be crowing to the fucking universe if they had a working missile defense screen.

It's the last running legacy of Reagan. There's no way they'd sit on that kind of propaganda victory if they had anything resembling success from it.

Which state adversary has ballistic technology to strike any where in the world like we do?

Both of the nuclear-armed NATO countries match the US in threat range. They have access to equivalent ICBMS and have vessels fitted with nuclear payloads. Granted, they don't have the same number of either as the US, but you don't need many to do significant damage.

Russia and China both have inferior ICBMs, but again can project that force sufficiently well to threaten any nation they so chose. China also has at least one nuclear-armed submarine, possibly more.

Pakistan, India and Israel are the armed states that can't do long-range threat projection. Not that they need it, given the tinderbox environment they all sit in.

[_M_]

Without any evidence to the contrary, logic would indicate that, given the history and current actions of the US government, they'd be crowing to the fucking universe if they had a working missile defense screen.

It's the last running legacy of Reagan. There's no way they'd sit on that kind of propaganda victory if they had anything resembling success from it.

Na, I think the U.S. has relaxed on the whole "Arrogant America." Can't say the same for our citizens.

Propaganda was a better used weapon during the Cold War against the USSR as opposed to using it against our adversaries in current times.

Times and situations change. With knowing of adversaries having ballistic nuclear capabilities, don't you think the U.S. would actually be secretive nowadays, given the technology and communication advancements?

Any of the nuclear-armed NATO countries match the US in threat range. They use equivalent ICBMS and have vessels capable of fitting a nuclear payload. Granted, they don't have the same number of either as the US, but you don't need that many to do significant damage.

Russia and China both have inferior ICBMs, but again can project that force sufficiently well to threaten any nation they so chose. China also has at least one nuclear-armed submarine, possibly more.


Pakistan, India and Israel are the armed states that can't do long-range threat projection. Not that they need it, given the tinderbox environment they all sit in

All the more reason to keep our defensive systems hush hush, no?

I really don't see India and/or Israel becoming adversaries in anytime soon. Pakistan, eh, I really don't know.

If anything, Israel/India would be a platform for our nuclear strike package.

[Dr Mario]

Na, I think the U.S. has relaxed on the whole "Arrogant America." Can't say the same for our citizens.

Propaganda was a better used weapon during the Cold War against the USSR as opposed to using it against our adversaries in current times.

Times and situations change. With knowing of adversaries having ballistic nuclear capabilities, don't you think the U.S. would actually be secretive nowadays, given the technology and communication advancements?

I might. If the current government had a history that didn't involve being a pack of lying self-aggrandising fools with a force of will approach to reality.

Keeping things quiet just isn't in the MO of the US administration.

If anything, Israel/India would be a platform for our nuclear strike package.

That would be a remarkably bad idea, even by the standards of US foreign policy.

[_M_]

I might. If the current government had a history other than overstating every factoid it can get it's hand on.

Keeping things quiet just isn't in the MO of the US administration.

Well can't really argue there. Although I'd like to believe they've changed.

That would be a remarkably bad idea, even by the standards of US foreign policy.

How so? It's almost similar to letting U.S. vessels with nuclear strike capabilities into their seas and water ways.

[Dr Mario]

How so? It's almost similar to letting U.S. vessels with nuclear strike capabilities into their seas and water ways.

The act of placing weaponry in someone elses nation isn't the major problem here (it's been done with several NATO nations. People aren't always happy about it, but it hasn't been an alliance breaker in the past). The problem is with the nations chosen for placement. It's about not further destabilising the regions chosen.

India/Pakistan is quite a dangerous balance. Beyond this, US support has been rather important in keeping Musharaff in power. If he loses that support or is pushed into breaking away from it (say, by the US cutting a deal with India to keep nuclear weaponry inside their border. He can't afford to look weak in any dealings and if the US goes to a rival nation for their local operations he looks like a cuckolded bitch) then he'll have to go elsewhere for support to forestall the risk of being deposed by extremists.

Best case scenario? the West alienates an armed nuclear state and pushes it into the arms of whoever will back them. Probably China, who already have a friendly relationship with Pakistan.

Worst case scenario? Musharaff gets ousted and a fundamentalist government is installed. Given the national (both political and religious) differences with India in the past and the status given to India as the regions western bulkhead, that'd fuck over any chance of progression in relations between the two states.


For Israel, bear in mind how it is often seen as a symbiote of the US.

Now, Israel has made quite a lot of noise in the past about not being the one to introduce nuclear weaponry to the ME. Its widely held that they're lying and already have nuclear weaponry but they've never been open about it. If they openly declare that they have nukes inside their borders then a whole bunch of Iranian bluster gets validated. The people, and not just those of Iran, rally back behind the Iranian government, Iran gets to look like the player in the region outside of the US/Israel and things in general get a lot more hostile.

That would blow our best chance at modernising the region by turning the major players towards us. Take Syria and Egypt as examples here. They aren't great, but they're more open to us than many in the area. They also aren't generally seen as US puppets. So dealing with them is more useful than Iraq (seen as an occupied puppet state), Israel (again, seen as a puppet state) or Saudi Arabia (widely disliked in the ME). They wont deal if the politicial situation gets too heated and without them coming to the table, we have to deal with an antagonistic regional power in Iran. On top of this, Iran is all of a sudden a lot more respected and more entrenched in it's opposition to us. Sets the chances for peace and secularisation of the region back quite a way.

It also risks the breakout of war if the plans leak out beforehand or if Iran (hell, any nation in the area) gets its hands on nukes. Which they'd probably rush to do for MAD purposes if nothing else.

[_M_]

The act of placing weaponry in someone elses nation isn't the major problem here (it's been done with several NATO nations. People aren't always happy about it, but it hasn't been an alliance breaker in the past). The problem is with the nations chosen for placement and more importantly, it's about not further destablising the regions chosen.

India/Pakistan is quite a dangerous balance. Beyond this, US support has been rather important in keeping Musharaff in power. If he loses that support or is pushed into breaking away from it (say, by the US cutting a deal with India to keep nuclear weaponry inside their border. He can't afford to look weak in any dealings and if the US goes to a rival nation for their local operations he looks like a cuckolded bitch) then he'll have to go elsewhere for support to forestall the risk of being deposed by extremists.

Best case scenario? the West alienates an armed nuclear state and pushes it into the arms of whoever will back them. Probably China, who already have a friendly relationship with Pakistan.

Worst case scenario? Musharaff gets ousted and a fundamentalist government is installed. Given the national (both political and religious) differences with India in the past and the status given to India as the regions western bulkhead, that'd fuck over any chance of progression in relations between the two states.


For Israel, bear in mind how it is often seen as a symbiote of the US.

Now, Israel has made quite a lot of noise in the past about not being the one to introduce nuclear weaponry to the ME. Its widely held that they're lying and already have nuclear weaponry but they've never been open about it. If they openly declare that they have nukes inside their borders then a whole bunch of Iranian bluster gets validated. The people, and not just those of Iran, rally back behind the Iranian government, Iran gets to look like the player in the region outside of the US/Israel and things in general get a lot more hostile.

That would blow our best chance at modernising the region by turning the major players towards us. Take Syria and Egypt as examples here. They aren't great, but they're more open to us than many in the area. They also aren't generally seen as US puppets. So dealing with them is more useful than Iraq (seen as an occupied puppet state), Israel (again, seen as a puppet state) or Saudi Arabia (widely disliked in the ME). Without them coming to the table, we have to deal with an antagonistic regional power in Iran. On top of this, Iran is all of a sudden a lot more respected and more entrenched in it's opposition to us. Sets the chances for peace and secularisation of the region back quite a way.

It also risks the breakout of war if the plans leak out beforehand or if Iran (hell, any nation in the area) gets its hands on nukes. Which they'd probably rush to do for MAD purposes if nothing else.

Wow, I possess no rebuttal or riposte.

Your logic, reasoning, and examples are nearly flawless. I almost completely agree with you. Extremely well said.

Edit: If I could double rep you I totally would.