DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on January 12, 2010, 02:38:11 PM
-
This guy was written up very favourably in the New Yorker magazine, about (I'm guessing) maybe a year ago or less. He's serious and taken very seriously by professionals in the field.
http://www.mphpa.org/classic/BK/coster-mullen-book.htm (http://www.mphpa.org/classic/BK/coster-mullen-book.htm)
The theoretical knowledge of how the atomic bomb works has been around for a long time, at least since 1945. The practical knowledge of how to build a working Fat Man is available, inter alia, in Coster-Mullen's book. I realize that there has been a lot of progress in nuclear weapons technology since Fat Man, but I bet to your average "terrorist," a working and portable or modular Fat Man would be the Holy Grail.
Impossible to keep the nuclear genie in the bottle.
I think the Israeli policy of assassinating nuclear scientists is childish and futile. Knowledge is never killed off. Professors leave notes, reports and students, collaborators and disciples. I question whether the scientists assassinated (a) were even assassinated by Israelis or (b) were valuable working contributors to a Persian Bomb. You could assume that valuable contributors to such an important project would be isolated and/or guarded by their government. These could be either victims of some Iranian government feud, traitors who needed to be taught a lesson or otherwise insignificant (except to their families and friends) "trophy victims" meant to demonstrate the "all-powerful" reach of the Mossad to doubting Thomases. Indeed, I can't help thinking, if they were so valuable to an Iranian bomb, why were they so loosely guarded?
-
...and there's Tee, all the while, hoping upon hope, that both America gets its butt kicked by Islamic terrorists (maybe a few more buildings could be brought down. Perhaps even thousands more in death, than even 911 wrought), and that Israel gets a nuke right up their arse, courtesy of President Ahmanutjob
Oh the glee, he might get. Perhaps even get a warm tingly feeling down his leg.
-
...and there's Tee, all the while, hoping upon hope, that both America gets its butt kicked by Islamic terrorists (maybe a few more buildings could be brought down. Perhaps even thousands more in death, than even 911 wrought), and that Israel gets a nuke right up their arse, courtesy of President Ahmanutjob. Oh the glee, he might get. Perhaps even get a warm tingly feeling down his leg.
Then SIRS this will not please Michael Tee! OBAMA sending Carrier Strike Group just to say "Howdy"!...LOL
Petraeus: Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be bombed
DEBKAfile Special Report
January 11, 2010, 10:14 AM (GMT+02:00)
(http://www2.debka.com/photos/s_6456.jpg)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower arrives
The deployment in the Middle East of the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower carrier strike group in the first week of January adds muscle to the words of Gen. David Petraeus, CENTCOM commander, on Jan 10 that Iranian nuclear infrastructure, albeit strengthened against attack with enhanced underground tunnels, wasn't fully protected.
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said to CNN. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have and what capability they can bring to bear."
This judgment contradicts recent US media estimates that Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep in fortified tunnels are now protected against air or missile strikes.
Declining to comment on the likelihood of an Israeli strike, Gen. Petraeus said there was still time for diplomacy, but pointed out: "It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about 'what ifs' and making plans for a whole variety of different contingencies."
DEBKAfile's military sources add: CENTCOM was substantially beefed up by the USS Eisenhower carrier which President Barack Obama deployed in the New Year to the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean in support of the US Fifth and Sixth Fleets. He ordered this six-month deployment, the first since he took office a year ago, in view of the rising tensions around Yemen and Iran.
The Eisenhower carries eight air squadrons on its decks.
Air Wing Seven is made up of four fighter-bomber squadrons, a squadron each of early-warning surveillance, electronic warfare and tactical support aircraft and another of anti-submarine helicopters. Its strike force consists of the USS Hue City guided missile cruiser, and two guided missile destroyers, the USS McFaul, USS Farragut and USS Carney.
Obama said in a recent interview that he had not intention of sending US combat troops to the terrorist havens of Somalia and Yemen because "working with international partners is most effective at this point."
This statement ties in with pumping up America's naval and air strength in the two volatile regions to avoid sending in more boots on the ground which the US cannot afford at this time.
-
And in case nobody here realizes this, aircraft carriers can be sunk. By land-based missiles and by ship-to-ship missiles.
One day the schoolyard bully WILL get its ass kicked. I know that for a fact.
-
Like Clockwork. At least Tee doesn't disappoint 8)
-
I have figured out a way to destroy an underground instalation no matter how deeply it is buried.
Who do I tell?
-
I think the Israeli policy of assassinating nuclear scientists is childish and futile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull)
If the assassination of a key person werre to delay the deployment of a bomb for only six months , I imagine the Mossad thinking it worthwile.
-
<<If the assassination of a key person werre to delay the deployment of a bomb for only six months , I imagine the Mossad thinking it worthwile.>>
Unless the Iranians are total idiots, they'd never let a key scientist run any risk of assassination and they'd arrange their affairs so that the assassination of any one guy wouldn't delay the project by six minutes, let alone six months.
If they didn't know that before, they sure as hell know it now.
-
Are you accuseing the Iranian govenment of idiocy?
If you are let me join you.
Refinerys would make a lot of sense and are cheaper.
What would it help to have a cupple of bombs if your enemy has more of them and is able to strangle your economy without useing them?
If they had refinerys it would be harder to cut the Iranian people and military off from gasoline and deisel fuel.
A few small well placed bombs would make all of Irans tank crews into infantry.
-
And in case nobody here realizes this, aircraft carriers can be sunk. By land-based missiles and by ship-to-ship missiles. One day the schoolyard bully WILL get its ass kicked. I know that for a fact.
In case nobody realizes this, if a US Aircraft Carrier or other important naval vessels are sunk, those doing the sinking can get their ass kicked 1000 times worse....see Hiroshima and Nagasaki for evidence of ass kickings handed out to those silly enough to sink US Naval vessels. The Mullahs hide behind their proxies are not stupid enough to ever challenge the United States military directly in any serious manner...because they know if they do....they'll be vaporized.
-
<<Are you accuseing the Iranian govenment of idiocy?>>
No, on the whole I'd say they're pretty smart. I think it's more likely that they safeguard the nuclear scientists they really need than that they leave them open to Israeli, British or American assassins. But they have some pretty dumb people in their government too. Dumb and vicious.
<<Refinerys would make a lot of sense and are cheaper.>>
If I'm not mistaken, they don't have any refineries.
<<What would it help to have a cupple of bombs if your enemy has more of them . . . >>
Depends on who's better able to absorb a few nukes. Does the U.S. government want to adopt a policy that would lead to even one nuke hitting a U.S. city?
<<and is able to strangle your economy without useing them?>>
Dream on, plane. The simple fact is that the U.S. is not able to strangle the Iranian economy. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is going to have its hands full keeping its own economy from fatally imploding.
-
<<Are you accuseing the Iranian govenment of idiocy?>>
No, on the whole I'd say they're pretty smart. I think it's more likely that they safeguard the nuclear scientists they really need than that they leave them open to Israeli, British or American assassins. But they have some pretty dumb people in their government too. Dumb and vicious.
<<Refinerys would make a lot of sense and are cheaper.>>
If I'm not mistaken, they don't have any refineries.
<<What would it help to have a cupple of bombs if your enemy has more of them . . . >>
Depends on who's better able to absorb a few nukes. Does the U.S. government want to adopt a policy that would lead to even one nuke hitting a U.S. city?
<<and is able to strangle your economy without useing them?>>
Dream on, plane. The simple fact is that the U.S. is not able to strangle the Iranian economy. As a matter of fact, the U.S. is going to have its hands full keeping its own economy from fatally imploding.
If they had refinerys it would be harder to cut the Iranian people and military off from gasoline and deisel fuel.
A few small well placed bombs would make all of Irans tank crews into infantry.
Are you pretending to misunderstand?
Haveing no refinerys , or even only a few is idiocy , the economy of Iran is half strangled already closeing off the access to fuel would not be hard .
I grew up near a good target for Soviet missles we didn't back down from the USSR , and we didn't use our A-bombs on them either.
A- bombs are not as usefull as they are expensive.
Do the people of Iran really want to get in a tossing match with someone who owns 40% of the rocks? They are not gonna be near 1% of the worlds a-bombs for years yet and that will be at a crippleing cost.
Other Islamists are getting on the nerves of the Russians now , between the US and the Russians we own 90% of the a-bombs.
What can Iran hope for, a magic delivery system that neaves no track back to the sorce?
-
Are you pretending to misunderstand?
<<Haveing no refinerys , or even only a few is idiocy . . . >>
That is such a sweeping generality that it's meaningless. There could be good reasons or no good reasons why Iraq doesn't have a refinery. I bet if it doesn't have one, there are reasons for that and furthermore that if it's idiocy, it would have been an idiocy that went back to the Shah's time and even before then.
<< . . . the economy of Iran is half strangled already >>
Where does that come from? They're experiencing a downturn in the price of oil, the people in the streets of Tehran don't look like they're in rags, do they?
<<closeing off the access to fuel would not be hard .>>
Talk is cheap. See what happens when you try it.
<<I grew up near a good target for Soviet missles we didn't back down from the USSR >>
No? But a year after the Cuban missile crisis ended, all your Jupiter missiles came out of Turkey. Coincidence, right?
<< and we didn't use our A-bombs on them either.>>
Where do you think the U.S.S.R. would have been without their A-bombs?
A- bombs are not as usefull as they are expensive.
<<Do the people of Iran really want to get in a tossing match with someone who owns 40% of the rocks? They are not gonna be near 1% of the worlds a-bombs for years yet and that will be at a crippleing cost.>>
Yeah, it looks like they do. They've seen what happens to countries which don't have nukes (Afghanistan, Iraq) and they've seen what doesn't happen to countries that do (like North Korea.) The lessons are pretty clear. The question you Americans should be asking yourselves is do YOU want to get in a tossing match with someone who owns 1% of the rocks? My guess would be that one or two nuclear strikes on U.S. targets are more than you could bear, and total nuking of your adversary wouldn't faze them as much as the loss of a couple of your cities would faze you. You are soft people and they are tough people.
<<Other Islamists are getting on the nerves of the Russians now , between the US and the Russians we own 90% of the a-bombs.>>
You're also getting on the nerves of the Russians. Maybe they'll decide that the U.S. is the bigger threat and make nice with the Islamists so they can concentrate their attention on the Great Satan and leave the Big Brown Bear alone.
<<What can Iran hope for, a magic delivery system that neaves no track back to the sorce?>>
Enough nukes to make the Great Satan turn its attention to weaker, more vulnerable targets. A small but credible deterrent.
-
You are soft people and they are tough people.
You really don't know Americans.
-
<<I grew up near a good target for Soviet missles we didn't back down from the USSR >>
No? But a year after the Cuban missile crisis ended, all your Jupiter missiles came out of Turkey. Coincidence, right?
<< and we didn't use our A-bombs on them either.>>
Where do you think the U.S.S.R. would have been without their A-bombs?
A- bombs are not as usefull as they are expensive.
That is a good question.
I Imagine that if they had spent about half as much on defence and nothing on expantion that they would still be Soviet.
You know what happens to contries that spend too much on military , like North Korea? Their people starve to death .
What indeed happend to North Korea those fourty years that they were irritateing but Nuke free?
-
<<I Imagine that if they had spent about half as much on defence and nothing on expantion that they would still be Soviet.>>
Interesting. So their military expenses bankrupted them and ultimately led to regime change. Keeping in mind that they started from a much lower base of industrial capability than the U.S. started from after WWII, how long do you think it will take for U.S. military expenditures to bankrupt them?
<<You know what happens to contries that spend too much on military , like North Korea? Their people starve to death .>>
Well, let's just say that that would be the hope and the intention of U.S. aggression, or in this case, aggression by U.S. proxies. Force them into a bind where they have to choose between independence through reliance on their own military strength and submission to U.S. domination through starvation and hope that they'll pick the latter. What if the nukes are ultimately a cheaper defence than a large standing army? After all, the U.S. land forces did not attempt to match the size of the U.S.S.R.. land forces during the early years of the Cold War, but relied on its nuclear deterrent for defence, even after it lost its monopoly.
<<What indeed happend to North Korea those fourty years that they were irritateing but Nuke free?>>
LOL. I guess you could say the same of all targets of U.S. aggression, simply because the U.S. lacks the resources to invade all of them at once. There's a period of time when U.S. aggression, by necessity, has to focus on other targets, and during that window of opportunity, some nations, like North Korea, acquire the nuclear deterrent they need, and others, like Iraq or Afghanistan, very foolishly don't.
-
Damned if they do...damned if they don't. Must fit template...must fit template
-
Interesting. So their military expenses bankrupted them and ultimately led to regime change. Keeping in mind that they started from a much lower base of industrial capability than the U.S. started from after WWII, how long do you think it will take for U.S. military expenditures to bankrupt them
Michael that depends...if the United States keep inventing Microsofts, Dells, Ciscos, Apple Computers, Apple I-Phones, MRI machines, Walmarts, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect....then the military expenditures won't bankrupt them....but if the US goes down the road of being anti-business and isnt inventing anything of consequence like the Soviet Socialists did....then yeah we could go bankrupt like they did. As long as the US stays innovative and free enterprise..and allows US entrepreneurs to risk with great rewards as the carrot then the US will continue to KICK ASS!
-
ahhhh.....starting to see the method to their (liberal Democrats') madness Cu4? ;)
-
<<I Imagine that if they had spent about half as much on defence and nothing on expantion that they would still be Soviet.>>
Interesting. So their military expenses bankrupted them and ultimately led to regime change. Keeping in mind that they started from a much lower base of industrial capability than the U.S. started from after WWII, how long do you think it will take for U.S. military expenditures to bankrupt them?
They were undone by their own parinoia.
They had greater natural resorces than the US and less damage than Japan.
So how did the US grow and Japan grow and the Soviets founder?
To me they had a communist philosophy , which is a disadvantage to the freedom of the common man and to industrial development . It was being Soviet itself that was their greatest disadvantage.
Without the Communism they might develop a lot faster now , the oppurtunity is theirs to loose.
-
<< . . . if the United States keep inventing Microsofts, Dells, Ciscos, Apple Computers, Apple I-Phones, MRI machines, Walmarts, ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect ect....then the military expenditures won't bankrupt them....>>
CU4, don't you ever wonder how, if the U.S. invented all that wonderful stuff, they've been running a negative balance of trade for years? Whatever it is that they're producing, they seem to want what the rest of the world sells to them more than the rest of the world seems to want whatever it is that America is producing. The numbers don't lie, CU4, and it's not just one bad year, but it's year after year after year of trading deficit. And now finally they're at the end of the rope. How much longer can they go on buying what they can't pay for?
<<but if the US goes down the road of being anti-business and isnt inventing anything of consequence like the Soviet Socialists did....>>
Well after eight years of the pro-business Bush administration, the U.S. economy wound up on the brink of collapse. Funny how that happened, eh? Pro-business policies didn't save their ass, it almost drove them into the abyss. Business is NOT about making innovations primarily, it's about the bottom line. If the bottom line in selling shit is healthy and in the black, you will be sold a lot of shit. That's in fact what happens, whether the business is entertainment, health-care insurance, pharmaceuticals, processed chickens or securitized packages of sub-prime mortgages.
<<They athen yeah we could go bankrupt like they did. As long as the US stays innovative and free enterprise..and allows US entrepreneurs to risk with great rewards as the carrot then the US will continue to KICK ASS!>>
Sounds like somebody whistling past the graveyard, CU4. The Indians, Brazilians, Chinese and Russians are catching up to you and the EU is whipping your ass. You worked your way up to the top, I'll admit, so you've got a long way to fall before you hit bottom, but every year you keep slipping DOWN, not up, and you can't even blame the "anti-business" Democrats for this because the decline was well in evidence during Bush's years of office. Where's all that innovation and free enterprise now, CU4? Your OFFICIAL rate of unemployment is 10% but most articles I read say that the real rate is closer to 17 or 18%, because the official "jobless" are under-counted by the way they are officially defined.
-
Well after eight years of the pro-business Bush administration, the U.S. economy wound up on the brink of collapse.
"Pro-business"? Not so much.
-
"CU4, don't you ever wonder how, if the U.S. invented all that wonderful
stuff, they've been running a negative balance of trade for years?"
LOL...you cant be serious? So if some third world county makes straw hats and doesn't buy our MRI machines and our Microsoft/Cisco/Dell products and we but lots of of straw hats, brooms, and velvet pictures of dogs playing poker....then somwhow they are more successful? McDonalds sells the most hamburgers too Michael.....of course we are going to buy everything....we are the biggest consumers in the world....doesn't that tell you something?.....Is it an accident North Korea isn't the biggest consumer in the world? Why is that?....LOL.....I have a "negative trade balance" with my maid too....I pay her every other week.....GOSH OMG my trade deficit with her is about $300 a month....but she does a good job cleaning my toilets especially when I "miss" in the middle of the night. ;)
-
<<So if some third world county makes straw hats and doesn't buy our MRI machines and our Microsoft/Cisco/Dell products and we but lots of of straw hats, brooms, and velvet pictures of dogs playing poker....then somwhow they are more successful? >>
Yes, exactly, CU4. The market has spoken. There is more demand for straw hats than there is for MRI machines, and they're selling a higher dollar volume of straw hats to you than you are selling MRI machines to them.
An NHL forward makes more money than 10 E.R. nurses. Who's more successful? the hockey player or the nurse?
<<.....of course we are going to buy everything....we are the biggest consumers in the world....doesn't that tell you something?>>
Sure. Tells me you're living off capital and not paying your way. Inevitably, you will run out of capital and inevitably, when that happens, you will crash and burn.
<<.....Is it an accident North Korea isn't the biggest consumer in the world? Why is that?>>
They had other priorities - - like national independence, like defence of the Revolution - - that made more sense to them.
<<...LOL.....I have a "negative trade balance" with my maid too....I pay her every other week....>>
I expect you probably exploit your maid. She works long, hard hours, cleaning your and other people's rooms, for a pittance. Your ability to have a negative trade balance with your maid is made possible by the positive trade balance you enjoy with your customers. They give you more than you give them. The difference is your profit. From that difference, you pay off your maid.
If you consider your overall trade balance, what you pay your maid, your suppliers and your workers as against what you take in from your customers, you probably have a nice healthy positive balance of trade. VERY UNLIKE the U.S.A.
-
"The market has spoken"
YES IT HAS!----->QUITE LOUDLY!
And the United States has ranked in the top echelons for decades upon decades.
Nuff said?
-
"I expect you probably exploit your maid. She works long,
hard hours, cleaning your and other people's rooms, for a pittance"
Dude...why do always assume the worst about people?
Were you like beaten as a child? (JK)
Quite the contrary Michael, my maid tells me I am one of her favorite customers.
Michael Tee I may not know much...but I understand people.
You treat employees...maids..yard landscape guys...waitors...whatever....like shit
you reap shit......
thats why North Korea reaps shit....they treat their people like shit
you treat people...like maids/employees/ect with respect...with dignity...and treat them well
you usually reap the rewards
i try to "spoil" employees, maids, and many people I deal with
then you get the best results...the best service....
and lastly....please dont take it that I am some nice guy
(although I think I am...lol)
one reason to treat people well....pay people well....be a good listener
is selfishness.....yes selfishness can be a good thing....it can be a win-win
because if you do those things....you get it all back 1000 times
i just betcha Michael Tee my maid...my gal at the Dry Cleaners....my Mom's former hospice nurses
would say nobody treats them better....and the last thing they feel is exploited when dealing with me.
-
Sorry it got that personal, CU4. I wasn't speaking of you personally regarding exploitation. I'm sure you pay the going rate or higher and are a very pleasant guy to deal with. What I meant was that the going rate itself, or even a premium over it, is itself an exploitation of immigrant labour, that they should be better compensated but haven't been able to organize unions, etc. and so are at the bottom of the economic ladder.
Treating people like shit and economic exploitation are two different things. You personally couldn't be responsible for the economic exploitation of domestic service workers in the U.S. since you don't set the going rate of compensation.
I apologize if I offended you, but I really did not mean to imply either that you treated the maid like shit or that you were responsible for the shit wages that she gets in return for the work that she does.
And I agree with you - - it's always better to treat people well. A little personal interest in their families, a few tickets to a concert they might like to attend with a friend, a smile, a listening ear, etc. They don't get rich from it, but it's always appreciated. Especially because there are so many ass-holes out there who you will be compared with. I've gotten a lot of positive feed-back over the years from employees, some of them for long after we've parted ways. It's good business in more ways than one.
-
it's cool Michael Tee....i mistook your statement as being more personal
i hope my maid is not "exploited"....i dont think she feels that way
she has her own little cleaning service
she charges me $147 and she is at my house about 3 hours
my house is spotless clean and smells fresh and wonderful when I get home
she tells me she can do 3 houses a day
$147 x 3 = $441
$441 a day is "exploitation?
hell even if she does 2 at $147 some days....$294 a day is "exploitation"?
sure she works her ass off
but Jezzzzzz seriously....do you know how many people in the world would die to be "exploited" like that?
$441 a day!.....Freedom......The United States......dont ya love it!
:D :o :D
-
<<she charges me $147 and she is at my house about 3 hours
<<my house is spotless clean and smells fresh and wonderful when I get home>>
147 BUCKS??? I changed my mind, CU4. I think SHE'S exploiting YOU.
Here in Toronto, we have no trouble finding good cleaning ladies for $50 to $70 to come in for a good four hours to clean house. YMMV. Some do a good job, some not. They generally do two to three houses a day if they're good, but that is a long and physically exhausting day for them. Generally it's a cash business, so I guess you can factor in that a lot of their earnings are tax-free, but it still looks like exploitation.
<<do you know how many people in the world would die to be "exploited" like that?
<<$441 a day!.....Freedom......The United States......dont ya love it!>>
Well, I admit that they're better paid than I thought they'd be. I don't know about loving it though - - there must be easier ways to make that money. No perks, no benefits, and from their salary, they gotta pay for their own and their family's health insurance. You'd have to be an economist to figure out who's better off than who, but there are social costs also to that kind of economic wage slavery - - in addition to the time spent cleaning houses, she has to travel back and forth to work and from one house to another, often by public transportation, taking even more time away from the home and kids. No matter how you want to depict this, CU4, it is a tough life.
-
No perks, no benefits, and from their salary, they gotta pay for their own and their family's health insurance.
For 2 days labor she can pay for a month's health insurance ($800-1000) for a basic plan.
-
Michael....I am sure I could find someone cheaper....
but I have a comfort level with this woman.
I feel she is trustworthy, honest, punctual, dependable. (and speaks english well)
She comes every other Friday.
Vacuums downstairs/upstairs
Sweeps out the garage.
Does a couple loads of laundry
gets bathrooms...sinks...showers...floors....spotless
cleans kitchen...counters, sink, wipes down appliances...ect
dusts upstairs/downstairs
Windex windows
Pledge wood
makes beds...washes bedding
ect...ect...ect...