We will win nuclear war, says India

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bonkey listen to what your saying- Your saying you agree the list India has provided is accurate- Yet at the same time your saying India isnt justified in expecting to bring these terrorists to justice? Why?

Sand.... I'll copy and paste what I wrote originally , and I'll even add some italics so that you dont miss the little nuances of what it is I wrote...

Now, dont get me wrong. I'm sure that most or maybe all of the names on those lists are terrorists

and

While I recognise that in most cases, the people being asked for *are* terrorists,

Nopw, having refreshed your memory slightly, could you possiby point out to me where I agree that the list India has provided is accurate.

As for neo- nazis theyre just powerless fringe groups, their right to free speech already prevented.

What? Neo Nazis in the US are denied the rights guaranteed to them under the First Amendment?

In Europe, sadly, this is true. Neo Nazis are denied basic human rights, as is anyone who has even the remotest positive connection to Fascism or Nazi-ism. While I disagree with their political ideals, I think it is ridiculous that they be denied the right to run for parliament, and/or be denied their legally elected positions should they garner enough public support.

So unless you want to bring back political re-education and thought police...let em spout their rubbish- its not like anybody but fools listen to them.

It doesnt matter if only fools listen to them - are you aware of the agitation these people cause in many European areas? Are you aware of the growing political support their offshoots have?

The world has no shortage of fools to listen to them. Are you advocating that we deny certain people the basic right to self-determination because of their political beliefs - democracy as long as you vote for acceptable parties? Thats what we are descending into. These people are powerless because the moral majority denies these people their basic rights, but doesnt kick up a fuss about it, because, well, we're the moral majority so we must be right.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Void
India has indicated that it has thermonuclear capability, but has not carried out any tests. However, once fission capability has been achieved, it is relatively easy to constuct fusion devices.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/nuke/index.html

TEST		DEVICE			DATE		YIELD 		YIELD
							claimed		reported 

Shakti 1	Thermonuclear device	11 May 1998	43-60 kiloton	12-25 kiloton 

The "yield" figures may be inaccurate as three devices were detonated simultaneously.

A "daisy cutter" is not a bomb. It is a 3-foot long piece of 'pipe' fitted to the impact fuse on a bomb to make it detonate above ground level. The objective is to damage material and personnel over a larger area. In this picture it is the 'pipe' on the right hand side with the safety pin attached (safety pin has red ribbon attached). The phrase "daisy cutter" has been used in reference to the BLU-82 bomb (pictured), but is not strictly correct. It would be like calling a Dell computer a "Pentium 4" when "Pentium 4" only describes one of the (important) features. The BLU-82 uses aluminium powder mix as an explosive (as used in the booster rockets on the space shuttle - I suspect a similar ammonium perchlorate / aluminum mix). It is too big a bomb to use Fuel Air Explosive (FAE), which have size limitations.

Victor

Originally posted by Void
Such weapons, used in the strategic Himalayan passes, would produce "relatively" little fallout and would achieve the desired military effect, thus making their use acceptable to the Pakistani leaders.

Your use of the word "relative" is dangerous. One could say that the wars in the former-Yugoslavia have been relatively harmless - 'only' 300,000 people died, but that would hardly represent the situation on the ground. Even today, there are new cases of cancer from the radiation of nuclear tests in the 1950s among people remote from the explosions. Of Australian medical personnel who were based in Nagasaki in 1946 (6 months after the bomb) 75% subsequantly died of premature cancer.

Originally posted by Void
I apologise for my use of military jargon, but there IS such a thing as a "small nuclear weapon".

Nuclear weapons with yields of as low a 250 tons equivalent of TNT have been developed. On the scale of things, the largest IRA bomb has probably been in the order of 0.5 to 1.0 tons (many IRA bombs were improvised explosives), but the largest nuclear weapons were in the order of 20 MT (20,000,000 tons of TNT equivalent). Remember though that explosions work on a root mean square basis and at a given distance increasing the bomb 4 times will only double the overpressure.

bonkey

Another issue which is being overlooked is the message that use of nuclear weapons would send.

India and Pakistan have some nice friendly nearby neighbours (Russia, China, and others) who would not feel particularly happy knowing that nearby nations would countenance the use of nuclear weapons in conflict.

The net effect would be increased tensions (at the very least) in the Asian continent, possible escalating beyond that to a full-blown cold-war of a scale to rival the East/West one from Europe, the US and the USSR up to a decade ago.

The world would effectively between those who condemned nations for the use of nuclear weapons, and those who defend their right to have done so. While the US could easily condemn them, nations with smaller arsenals could easily see this as justification both of having nuclear "defense" capabilities, and also as a precendent for considering their use.

We're talking major economies being polarised, perhaps to the point of trade breaking down, and the global village splitting into multiple tribes.

The size of the weapons is irrelevant. While a daisy cutter is believed to be as powerful as many of the weapons held by these two powers, the fact remains that it is a clean weapon. The nukes these nations hold will be more likely akin to Little Man and Fat Boy than the comparatively clean tacNukes which the US currently has on its cruise missiles. The use of such weapons with their long-term radiation issues is a horrifying prospect, and it would send reprecussions throughout the world.

India is full of bravado. No-one can win a nuclear exchange, and ultimately a generation of the planet's population would pay the price in one way or another.

jc

Victor

Bonkey, there are no nuclear weapons on cruise missiles, because of the INF treaty

The BLU-82 is substantially smaller than even the smallest nuclear weapon. It weights about 15 tonnes (weight for weight, I imagine it's explosive effects are on par or slightly better than TNT, it's just much cheaper than military grade explosives). Meanwhile the smallest American nuclear weapon is approximately 250-300 tonnes explosive equivalent.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/Usa/Weapons/Wpngall.html

amp

If Boards.ie ever goes to war against another nation I vote Victor head of Weapons Procurement.

amp - who is in the market for an Exocet or two if you've any going spare Vic.

Victor

Originally posted by amp
If Boards.ie ever goes to war against another nation

Have 'we' declared nationhood? Or should we?

Sand

Bonkey- Okay *mostly* accurate. Given Indian intelligence has a better idea who these people are then you or I and given their own unwillingness to let some patsy take the blame when the real terrorist gets away Im willing to bet *all* of the people on that list are terrorists.

Bonkey you kinda contradict yourself in your rush to disagree with me re. neo nazis. I share your view that free speech should not be impeded - however the power/mentality of the left is such that they can prevent free speech they do not agree with it and not see the hypocrisy of their position. However you then go on to say neo nazis stir up lots of trouble and there are plenty of fools to listen to them (Unless the socialists have got to them first:) ) - implying you believe there should be some action to prevent them "spouting their rubbish".

Hobbes:
The UN is unlikely to capture Bin Laden, So theyll have to wait their turn.

It might be best if Bin Laden wasnt taken alive, prevent all those hostage takings and attacks that would accompany his trial.

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

As for the UK theyll do what their told like always.

And as Ive already said, I believe the danger of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India to be highly over rated.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Sand
The UN is unlikely to capture Bin Laden, So theyll have to wait their turn.

But another country may and hand him over to the UN rather then the US?

It might be best if Bin Laden wasnt taken alive, prevent all those hostage takings and attacks that would accompany his trial.

Actually I think he should be taken alive. In peoples rush to kill him you will leave a lot of unanswered questions. It hasn't been proved he is the sole mastermind.

And as Ive already said, I believe the danger of a nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India to be highly over rated.

I don't. Their culture is very different to western culture so it is quite possible they don't share the same outlook that nukes=bad. India basically said it's willing to commit genocide to reach it's goal so why would a few nukes matter?

As for the list, just handing over a list is not enough. You have to show evidence of the people on the list. If a country that had strained relations on you handed you a shopping list and said "Hand them over or we'll nuke you" what do you think any sane persons response would be?

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Bonkey- Okay *mostly* accurate. Given Indian intelligence has a better idea who these people are then you or I and given their own unwillingness to let some patsy take the blame when the real terrorist gets away Im willing to bet *all* of the people on that list are terrorists.

My concern is more the possibility that there is one or more names on that list which should nto be there. Not patsys replacing legit "targets", but rather people India want out of the way, who may not be terrorists in any way shape or form.

This is *probably* not the case, but like I said, the idea of not suplying sufficient evidence with your ultimatums is a very dangerous one which I find disturbing but which the press seem to largely ignore....

Bonkey you kinda contradict yourself in your rush to disagree with me re. neo nazis.

<snip>

However you then go on to say neo nazis stir up lots of trouble and there are plenty of fools to listen to them (Unless the socialists have got to them first:) ) - implying you believe there should be some action to prevent them "spouting their rubbish".

Absdolutely not - sorry if I came across as unclear. I believe 100% in allowing these people their platform to speak on, and as long as they receive public support, then they are as entitled as the next man to be elected.

You give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.

Incitement to hatred / violence is a valid reason to arrest someone, or to prevent them from exercising their freedom of speech. In my eyes, membership of an organisation is not.

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

Now this is ridiculous. First off, not every American state has the death penalty, so implying that Americans broadly support the death penalty seems a bit facetious.

On the other hand, I would admit that a large number of Americans are likely to say (if asked) that they oppose the death penalty in general, but that it should apply to Osama bin Laden.

Secondly, I think you will find that internationally, more people oppose the death penalty than support it. Are you going to tell us that all of these people do not believe in justice becuase they're unwilling to administer the ultimate punishment?

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

And the fact that the UN doesnt have the death penalty might impress you, but not the Americans or most people who believe in justice.

Not only does the UN lack have the death penalty, they aren't a judicial body, so they can't hear a case or pass sentence :P The ICJ is perhaps what you were referring to- and they do employ the death penalty, though it hasn't been applied strictly since Nuremberg. And saying that Americans equate the death penalty with justice is suuuuch a crock I won't even go into it. On second thought, maybe I will, seeing as how I'm one of the many Americans who oppose it. Only 22 states have a death penalty on the books, and only 14 of them have applied that punishment since 1812. At the federal level it only seriously exists for treason and terrorism. To somehow infer that the public broadly supports it as a judicious punishment is stretching it a bit.

My own opinion isn't that bin Laden should be put to death- I personally believe that he should have a televised, openly conducted trial, where the full extent of the charges against him can be completely constructed. Sensitive information or evidence can be submitted to the bench in the form of sealed affidavits sub judice (for the eyes of the court). After a life sentence without parole, he should be paraded through the streets of Washington dressed like a clown, his back plastered with "Kick me" signs, and an open invitation for children to point and laugh at him...rotten fruit & veg hurling should also be encouraged to relieve the stress and nervous tension inherent on Capitol Hill. Seems a fair punishment to me...perhaps just life imprisonment then?

Occy

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
You give them enough rope, and they'll hang themselves.

Incitement to hatred / violence is a valid reason to arrest someone, or to prevent them from exercising their freedom of speech. In my eyes, membership of an organisation is not.

This is at risk of providing manouevre space for organisations like the IRA, Al Quada, Ku Klux Klan and the Mafia, each with a significant criminal element that outweight any legitimate element.

Sand

I believe in unrestricted free speech myself. Should somebody wish to believe something utterly stupid and try to persuade others of it (Communism or some similar left wing utopia for example) then fair enough. In a debate such limited views are taken apart and shown for what they are. Remember that court case with the nazi apologist in london last year, name of Irving or something. I remember his talk in Cork being attacked and disrupted by the Judean Peoples Front as they tried to prevent him airing his views. Silly fools as they are they didnt realise the best way to defeat him was to listen to his views and then counter them as was done in that London courtroom where Irvings crdibility was shattered and he was shown for the fool he was/is.

Only 14/22 states? Well thats a insignificant amount then. Whether the majority of americans disagree or agree on the death penalty is most likely a moot point given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Hobbes:
Its the US s war in afghanistan Hobbes, evidenced by the fact that its the US that takes the peacenik heat for it. The British might have some SAS or similar there but the US will keep them well away from any area where they belive Bin Laden to be and the $25 million reward should tantilise the average Afghan warlord who is entirely self interested. Hence it is most likely the US will get Bin Laden.

And Id hand them over if i was threatened with nukes given m sane and theyre terrorist scum:)

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand


Only 14/22 states? Well thats a insignificant amount then. Whether the majority of americans disagree or agree on the death penalty is most likely a moot point given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Are you seriously suggesting that being founded as a republic instantly mandates a legislated death sentence? I've never heard such drivel. You must be forgetting France, Germany and Italy then. All of which have either been founded as, or converted to federal republics. In fact, the US government model was strongly influenced by that of France. Yet France no longer has the death penalty- and remains a republic, of federated states, and sub-federated districts. My point is, that out of the states in the US (50 in total), only 14 actively pursue the death penalty as a punishment, and none as frequently as Texas, where it is an instrument of policy rather than justice. Anti-federalist doctrine, that flaming sword of the small-government champions- has certainly done more harm, and perpetuated more miscarriages of justice than any other political force in modern history. Just read Chief Justice William Rhenquist's "Review of Modern American Jurisprudence" (published by Yale University Press, legal department) for the details.

Inconsistencies in state policy lead to ridiculous parodies of justice and endless jurisdiction battles. Let us say I shoot Joe Bloggs in California (which hasn't the death penalty) and I then flee to Texas- state police there can charge me under the state penal code and the prosecution may then line me up for the injection table. A classic example of state policies, drafted with higher political ambition in mind, interfering with the basic course of criminal prosecution.

Sand, no one is depriving you of your right to express a valid opinion regarding the application of the death penalty. But to assert that a federated republic must in all fairness carry the death penalty may create the impression of ignorance, however undeserved.

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
given the US was founded as a republic (Irelands a democracy, not a republic despite the name) and despite efforts to *reform* it into a democracy remains a republic in many cases, including the death penalty.

Clearly my understanding is lacking here. My understanding of a republic does not preclude Ireland from being one. Furthermore, I dont see how Republicanism and Democracy are mutually exclusive, as you seem to be implying.

Can you clarify what a republic is, why Ireland isnt one, and why a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive?

I'm not trying to be smart here - I genuinely dont see how you distinguish bwtween the two...

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

re·pub·lic (r-pblk)
n.

1a) A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.
1b) A nation that has such a political order.

2a) A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
2b)A nation that has such a political order.

My money's on 2a, so I don't see how Eire fails to qualify as a republic. After all, the US, France, Italy, Germany and South Africa all started off as consitutional monarchies, ruled by bicameral parliamentary democracies, with some sort of monarch acting as the head of state. A revolution or two later, with perhaps a war thrown in, and you have a republic, no longer answerable in any manner to the monarch.

As far as the difference between a democracy and a republic goes, it's not so much a difference as a micro-cosm. A republic is a type of democratic government- as are constitutional monarchy, parliamentary democracy and plutocratic consularship (though certainly less democratic than the above).

Occy

Sand

I wouldnt say democracy and a republic are mutually exsclusive. Merely that a democracy is extremely centralised with any decisions of any importance been taken in the capital, using the populations overall will as the guide. France is a good example given its high level of centralised decision making, Ireland to is also very centralised.

Republic by contrast keeps a lot of decision making on a provincal/state/local level. The opinion of the overall population is unimportant, compared to the opinion of the local population. Witness the death penalty- So long as the majority of Texans want it, it will remain. I believe a republic is more effective than centralised democracy in determining what the people want, which is the goal of good government.

bonkey

Sand - where are those definitions coming from?

By your definition, the US is probably the only republic in the world, which seems like a very narrow definition of a republic.

jc

<edit>
I've jsut realised that Switzerland would also qualify. Silly me - I live here after all
</edit>

Sand

There arent that many genuine democracies in the world to begin with Bonkey:)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Republic by contrast keeps a lot of decision making on a provincal/state/local level. The opinion of the overall population is unimportant, compared to the opinion of the local population. Witness the death penalty- So long as the majority of Texans want it, it will remain. I believe a republic is more effective than centralised democracy in determining what the people want, which is the goal of good government.

Nope, you are describing a federalist system, not a Republican one. I'm not saying a federation can't be a Republic, but a federation delegates down and is decentralised as you point out, however wether or not a country has a federal or centralised system of governance it is a Republic if

a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

So there you go Ireland is a Republic as is France not a Federal government, but a centralised Republic.
/Unless Prodi has his way.

Clintons Cat

?

Some of the Financial and political incentives offered to India.
Britains backing for Indias inclusion to Permenent menber of the UN security council during the forthcoming reformation of the UN assembly.
Joint intelligence sharing with the US over Pakistan and China.
US to provide Special forces training to Indian special forces and help to overhaul command and control
British government to approve sale of 60 hawk "training"jets for As used after modification by the indonisians against east timor.