IPSC discussion evening: ‘Heart of Darkness’? Israel’s new far-right government

by Blacbloc Fri Apr 03, 2009 12:22

Shipment of arms has just arrived in Israel. Who are its intended victims?

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m53111&hd=&size=1&l=e

by David L Mon Apr 06, 2009 11:52

Cheers for that link blacbloc; several Israeli leaders - military and political - are talking about attacking Gaza again, but this time not being so gentle. Meanwhile it seems that the new govt is letting racist civilian militias run rampant - another step towards outright fascism. It's dark over there.

http://www.paltelegraph.com/index.php?option=com_conten...d=183

by Fred Johnston Mon Apr 06, 2009 14:27

Interesting that Barak Obama talks about reducing the world's nuclear arms capacity but says nothing of Israel's kidnapping and imprisonment in solitary confinement of Mordecai Vanunu, who blew the whistle on Israel's nuclear capability - and manages to install nuclear missiles in the Czech Republic against the wishes of the majority of the Czech government and people. It is not in the interests of either Israel or the United States to see established a Palestinian State; Israel is the bulwark in the Middle East, as the US sees it, against rising nationalism - for instance - which could ultimately threaten the West's oil supplies. Isael can act with impunity so long as the US holds this view. It is nonsense to suggest that the current hawkish government will entertain talks about an eventual Palestinian state. Some of their politicians have made this clear - though Israeli public opinion is not as favourable towards the new administration as we are given to believe. The EU, on the other hand, which Obama attempts to distract by talking up the al-Qaeda threat and pointing the finger at North Korea when they launch a rocket, are impotent, it seems, when it comes to dealing with Israel. Sanctions should have been imposed long ago. Israel is a rogue state and a dangerous one, as it stands; we should have expelled the Israeli ambassador during the slaughter in Gaza. But let us not kid ourselves that Israel is about to sit down and discuss a Palestinian state. Much more likely that a provocative attack will be made again on Hamas, with a view to having Hamas' supporters grow tired of the violence and turn against the party. And Hamas is a democratically-elected ruling party. If North Korea invaded South Korea tomorrow, Obama would be all yells and shouts and battle-cruisers. US political hypocrisy is a given in these instances.

by George Wed Apr 15, 2009 16:48

There are no nuclear ballistic missiles in the Czech Republic. As far as I am aware, the Czech Republic is not a nuclear-armed power, and the United States has no need to deploy nuclear weapons there, when its nuclear triad can hit anywhere in the world from bases in the United States (ballistic missiles and strategic bombers) as well as ballistic missile submarines. Nuclear weapons were based in Turkey during the Cold War, but there have never been any in the Czech Republic.

The missile system being built in the Czech Republic and Poland is the very opposite; it is a missile defense system, built to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles aimed at Europe. While I personally doubt its utility, as it could never have the capacity to deter a Russian strike and the Iranians are highly unlikely to launch a nuclear attack on Europe, it nevertheless is a defensive system.

Finally, battlecruisers went out of use in the aftermath of World War One. While your vocabulary is certainly sensationalist in both instances, it is not accurate, and therefore not relevant.

Very Respectfully,

G.F.Ryan

by Rory Wed Apr 15, 2009 18:08

Dear George,

What ? No facts again.

You dont know what missiles are or are not in Poland of the CR because it's not public information. The Russians believe the US intended to deploy Nukes there. But they have no facts - same as you.

Battlecruisers were used widely in World War II and are still used by the Russian Navy today.

Why do you talk about facts when you have none ?

by George Wed Apr 15, 2009 21:19

You are nominally correct on one issue: the Russians do have two Kirov class heavy cruisers, sometimes referred to as 'battlecruisers' in the West. While they are larger and more heavily armed than conventional cruisers, in terms of construction, mission and displacement they are still cruisers. A battlecruiser is really a battleship with lighter armor and increased speed, not an oversized cruiser, which is what the Kirov class really is. A battlecruiser and a cruiser are not the same thing, although they do share similarities. The Kirov class is not comparable to the US Navy's Iowa class Battleships for instance, so it is not a true battlecruiser.

Nevertheless, it does not change the fact that Obama does not have any battle-cruisers, so he cannot run amok with them.

You are wrong on the missiles in the Czech Republic. The missile defence system consists of two parts: a radar system in the Czech Republic and ten interceptor missiles in Poland. Even if the missiles in Poland were for some reason nuclear, it wouldn't significantly alter the strategic balance. Placing ten missiles in Poland when you have several thousand at home that can still hit the same place with the same accuracy would be a pointless waste of time, money and effort. Missiles were based in Turkey early in the Cold War primarily because the ICBM had not yet been developed, which meant that missiles in the United States did not have the range to effectively strike the Soviet Union, and vice versa. That is no longer the case. Missile interceptors are infinitely more plausible. The Russians are smarter than you give them credit for; they do not really believe that there are nuclear warheads in Poland, they play up the fear to make America look like a threatening power.

V/R

G.F. Ryan

by George Wed Apr 15, 2009 21:24

I made an error in my first post when I said battlecruisers went out of use in World War One. My meaning was 'out of fashion'. Many major navies still used them but no more were built by the first rate naval powers after 1918 and they displayed the same weaknesses in the second world war as the first.

V/R

by Rory Wed Apr 15, 2009 23:57

You obviously have no understanding of the phrase "first strike capability" which is odd for a person trying to dictate to the public "factual" US Nuclear strategy from a pile of unsubstantiated hearsay. This technicality alone renders your opinion on the likelihood of nukes having been deployed in eastern Europe, or not , by the US, as irrelevant. Here is a fact. It's not how many nukes you have pointed at a target that matters. It's who's get there first.

Second strike capability is a bummer when the enemy has a defense shield spread all the way back to the US.

Fact is - Nobody knows what missiles are where. It's not public knowledge.

When I say nobody knows, I know somebody knows but, you know what I mean. So its not a fact. But that actually is a fashionable phrase.

You still have no facts.

by George Thu Apr 16, 2009 02:30

Your argument is a falacy. Actually, in a nuclear exchange numbers do matter. First-strike doctrine requires firing far more than ten warheads in a Russo-American conflict scenario. With both sides deploying several thousand strategic nuclear weapons, first strike doctrine calls for an all-out strike to NEUTRALIZE THE ENEMY'S ABILITY TO RETALIATE as well as actually dropping warheads on their population centers. To fail to do so is suicide. Ten warheads arriving in Russia 10-15 minutes before the rest gives no benefit whatsoever, merely giving a window for a Russian counter-strike. I.E, launching a paltry ten nukes from Poland against Russia is suicide.

Other than your completely superficial tidbit on nuclear strategy, taken out of its strategic context, you are bullshitting, You do not even have an argument. The conclusions you drew in you're first paragraph are worthless.

There are no missile defences spread back to the United States. Thats the point of the project in the first place.

Please expand on what genuine benefit there is to the United States in building a facility for ten offensive missiles in Poland?

Also, I note that you assumed that I was a member of the public. I do not have immediate knowledge of the project, but I do have Pentagon connections.

V/R