2012

December 23, 2012

Where do U get your history from? Comic Books.

1. During the Korean War neither the US nor USSR had ICBMs. It was Land Based Bombers. The Soviets had around 40 if I recall correctly. There was never a showdown between the Soviets and US over Korea. Korea was a TRUE UN action. The Soviets made the mistake of walking out of the UN Security Council and the US got the UN to commit troops. Soviet Pilots were used by the N Koreans to fly the Mig Fighters though.

2. The Soviets ICBM capacity in the early 60s was pretty meager. Kennedy campaigned on a "Missle Gap" Eisenhower knew that the Soviets had very little, but couldn't say anything because the U2 flights were secret until Francis Gary Powers was shot down in 59. The point being that the Soviets were always out gunned.

3. Khrushev wasn't ousted because of the Cuban debacle. He actually got assurances that Cuba would not be invaded by the US, and oboslete short range Nuclear Missles were taken out of Turkey by the US.

4. Khrushev was ousted ONE WEEK after China exploded its first Nuclear Bomb in the fall of 64. That was the cause of Mr K being ousted.

5. The second major near Nuclear war miss was in 1967, during the 6 Day War. The Soviets came very close to intervening on the Arab side, but LBJ put a Carrier Task Force nearby and told the Soviets not to move.

I'm not talking about an end of the world. I'm basically saying we are in the eye of the storm period, where everything is kinda quiet. However if and when the Jihadists score a major hit the Western Worlds reaction is not going to be tolerant. A very draconian hand is going to come down, and the political landscape of the world as we know it will be changed.

The West at that point will either act or perish, so no matter who the President is, that person will have to act.

Tabs, I don't doubt your scenario if a major hit happens. Just who exactly are we going to come down on though? If we just indiscriminately nuke the middle East which is what many will call for, haven't we become them??

No, they don't have a nuke yet. We've had nukes 60+ years.

Once they get it, though, I think you'll see the big difference between us and them.

This may be the entire point. We've been fighting with one hand tied behind our back since Korea. In Tabs scenario that hand will come out and swat anything in front of it. So yes we could become as bad as they are and if we do then I easily see civilization changing...bigtime. V for Vendetta kind of stuff.

I'm a Christan, but I only have 4 cheeks to turn.

YEP, this is exactly the point of this Thread. Paul Krasner former Dept Secratary of State for Policy under Condi said this will be the response of not only the US but the Industrialized world in general. We will cut their money, take their oil,shoot them down if they get in our way and let Gawd sort them out.

You guys think way too complicated. The two most transported chemicals by truck and rail in the US are anhydrous ammonia and chlorine gas. Years ago, I did air pollution dispersion modeling as a consultant and I ran an EPA spill model scenario on an ammonia tanker accident where 100% of the gas was modeled to have been released. The LD100 (lethal dose to kill 100% of the people it came in contact with) was a plume something like 1/2 mile wide and several miles long. The LD50 (1/2 killed or maimed) was something like a mile wide and ten miles long. Of course, wind conditions temperature, humidity, etc. all come into play, but you get the idea. Blow up one of these babies in NYC, Chicago or any other city and you could kill millions. All with very easily obtainable low level explosives. Anyone can get ammonium nitrate fertilizer, diesel fuel and a blasting cap.

Sorry Tabs, I'm right on all counts. I didn't say anything about ICBMs, I said "launch" and "nukes". It is well documented that the closest the world came to nuclear war was the Cuban Missle Crisis. It is equally well documented that Mao asked Stalin to use Nukes against the US during the Korean War and he almost did. Kruschev's ouster was put in the works a bit earlier than the day before he go the axe. He got it because of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The assurances he got in return were things the US was going to do anyway. The Turkish missiles were being phased out anyway.

There would be alot of turmoil if thye hit us again and hit us hard.

I'm not sure we would see total war, but, we would see escalations that might make the difference very small.

If the islamist fundamentalists hit us again, I'd say bomb mecca.

In the heyday of the nuclear winter scenario back in the 80's, many thought the most valuable commodity would be .22 cal ammunition. Perhaps we should be stocking up on .22 cal bricks??

Fortified shelter at the end of 10 miles of nearly impassable road, deep in the woods, lined with cameras and boobytraps. Quicksand and snakes. Food, water, guns, ammunition, medicines. A platoon of killer dogs with their vocal cords removed. Backed up by hundreds of rabid killer paratroop squirrels.

The terrorists have already been using chemicals in their bombs in Iraq and this useage will spread world wide IMHO. Look for the "faithful" to get truck drivers licenses and start driving for chemical companies to facilitate strikes like this.

MRM,

Sorry but you are correct about the Cuban crisis but way off about both Korea and Kruschev. The agressor that would have made a strike during the Korea conflict was the Chinese, not the Ruskies. They did using millions of soldiers, not a nuke.

You and SloPat would get along very well...

I disagree.

If 9/11 taught us nothing, it's that the country WILL band together, however in meaningless fashion. People will buy their $3.99 American flags and fly them from their imported Japanese automobiles in a show of united nationalistic solidarity for a few weeks. Military recruitment numbers will spike for a few months. Tough talk will rule the day, mostly from grandstanding politicians, who will ultimately manipulate the situation for partisan gain, once they think the subject isn't taboo enough to exploit. In a few years after the incident, people will talk about it in the past tense, the lives lost all but forgotten and the broken reality for those directly affected hardly considered. It will be as if from a dream or action movie - not reality. Fox will air a bunch of flag-wavin', eagle screechin' propagandist nonsense for several months to keep the patriotic fervor going (and naturally to capitalize on it), then undermine it's own attempt at whipping up pseudo-patriotism by running another "American Idol", which most of the populace will find more interesting than remembering/honoring the dead.

We have become our own worst enemies, and our other enemies (including, but not limited to the Muslim extremists) are simply taking advantage of that, providing a catalyst which we'll use to accelerate the demise of our own culture and society. It's quite a spectacle if one steps outside of it and tries to view it objectively, actually. Quite amazing. I'm not hoping it happens that way, but there's my prediction.

What will the People have to do with it? Its what the Political Leadership and Bureaucracy does that counts. The means of attack are irrevelant, the size and scale are what matters. Two major cities in 2 parts of the world...LA and Toyko... A strike like that could very well be a Mortal Blow to the Global Economic System. To stave that off the Bureaucracys will act with a vengence. U think your Freedoms have been infringed upon now, just wait U ain't seen nothin yet.

Ole Mao might have asked Stalin about using Nukes against the US as Castro did during the Cuban crisis. However that doesn't mean Stalin listened. Comrade Stalin really didn't listen to anybody, only grudgingly to Zhuchov and a coupla of the other Marshalls of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War.

It is pointless to argue wioth MRm.

So the terrorists murdered 3,000 people on 9/11. If you put down a nuclear weapon and kill hundred of thousand innocent, what does that make YOU? The good guy?

You guys misunderstand what I am saying about Korea. Russia wasn't considering nuking the battle front in Korea, Stalin was considering a first strike on the US mainland.

The recent biography of Stalin, The Court of the Red Tsar, was able to use Soviet-era archives and interviews with surviving players and/or their children. In the last years of his life Stalin was not well, even for him. Mao and Stalin met in December 1949. Mao had approved Kim Il Sung's idea to invade South Korea and asked Stalin to sign off on the plan. Stalin did. When things went bad Mao asked Stalin to launch a first strike on the US - not on the Korean peninsula. Stalin considered it, was planning to do it, and then pulled back.

Khrushchev later comforted people who were worried about nuclear war with the US by saying that if Stalin didn't blunder into nuclear war over Korea, nuclear war wasn't going to happen. The author notes dryly the irony in that comment considering the only time the world came closer to nuclear war was through Khrushchev's own blundering leadership.

I refer you particularly to the chapters "The Bomb" and "Mao, Stalin's Birthday and the Korean War".

In his post script, Montefiore gives Khrushchev's epilogue: "Khrushchev, like Stalin before him, became Premier as well as First Secretary. *** After the scare of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the autocratic folly of his agricultural panaceas, Khrushchev was overthrown in 1964 by a cabal of Stalin's young stars, Brezhnev, Kosygin . . . "

Stalin The Court of the Red Tsar. Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2003. History Book of the Year - UK, 2004.