Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can dislike McCarthy but history has proven he was absolutely correct about Communists in the US Government.
Do you not see a potential problem with Dictator Chavez arming up given the sentiments he's expressed against the US?
No, I don't, but then again I'm not inclined towards being paranoid over "what if" scenarios. The world is filled with clowns like Chavez who pontificate and stick a finger in the eye of the US as a means to score points with populations of people who might not think of highly us as we think of ourselves. Which mind you is pretty damned high.
The real threat from Chavez isn't missiles, guns or bullets, its that his view of the US will spread to other South American countries. Recently, Brazil and Argentina both have began to break away from being under the thumb of Washington and started more serious discussions on a South American Union that isn't dependent upon the US or Europe. Nothing scares the United States more than to lose a client state in which it exacts its influence and will upon. Also, in case you had not noticed that Brazil, along with Turkey has agreed to exchange fissionable material with Iran, something I'm sure the folks in Washington are just thrilled about.
America took care of the worlds what, 4th or 5th largest military in Iraq in a matter of days and we are supposed to get our panties in a wad over 1800 anti-aircraft missiles because they might possibly cause us harm. Well using this logic, every single missile, bullet, tank, and gun on the planet has the potential for harming us, so are we just going to take action against this clown because he says were mean and don't pick them for the dodge-ball team?
Wake me up when someone is trying to park a dozen or so ballistic nuclear missiles off the coast of NY, LA, or Florida. Until then, I'm going to take a nap.
Shrug. How did all those anti-aircraft missiles work out for Saddam? I believe his were also of Russian manufacture. Let Chavez waste his money defending against a threat that does not exist.
Are you kidding? Saddam had antiquated missiles which were in fixed positions.
I emphasized the operand there, lest the not too bright get confused.
Fixed missile batteries of any kind are, well, um, fixed. Once a satellite makes a pass you forever know the exact, precise location of the missiles.
The US got rid of the fixed SAMs back in 1983-1985 (that would be the Nike-Hercules for those not in the know).
The US prefers mobile SAMs. Would anyone like to guess why? Because they are mobile, and you never know where they are, until they are lighting you up to fire on you.
It was a mobile Russian SA-6 (modified and upgraded) in Serbia that shot down a F-117 (stealth fighter), an F-18, and damaged a few other aircraft.
Your comparison of Iraq's fixed SAM sites and inability to properly use them with modern mobile SAMs in Venezuela fails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
America took care of the worlds what, 4th or 5th largest military in Iraq in a matter of days and we are supposed to get our panties in a wad over 1800 anti-aircraft missiles because they might possibly cause us harm.
The size of an army is totally irrelevant, and I would expect you to know that.
The US had a distinct advantage over Iraq because of technology. The US had satellites parked over Iraq. The US knew exactly were every single Iraqi military unit 24/7.
The Iraqis had no satellites and they only knew where the US military was when they were getting the snot shot out of them.
Those who read Sun Tzu know that in order to fight your enemy, you must know where the enemy is. The US always knew, Iraq never knew.
When the US is fighting an army that has satellites, the US will not hold an advantage, which will make things very interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lamontnow
Yes, the Iranian nuts now have ballistic missiles that have Europe in range from Iran. Those same missiles can go from Venezuela to the US.
According to the DOD, Iran will have ICBM's (nuclear capable) by 2015, meaning the US will be in range of missiles fired from Iran.
You mean the CIA that said 6 months after the Soviets test-detonated a thermo-nuclear device that it would be 5-8 years before the Soviets acquired a thermo-nuclear device?
Or perhaps you're referring to the CIA that thoughtfully have us advanced notice of India's test detonation? (the CIA failed again).
Or perhaps you're referring to a different CIA, the CIA that warned the US government in advance that North Korea was going to test detonate a nuclear device? (the CIA failed yet again).
I wouldn't bet the farm on the CIA unless you have a place staked-out at a homeless shelter.
Assuming for a moment, the CIA happens to be right, what should Iran mount on its ICBM?
A 0.1 kiloton uranium double-gun device?
Well, maybe Iran can build a MIRV platform to launch six to nine 1 kiloton double gun devices.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
I mean really, wouldn't it be totally brilliant to launch an ICBM that will do 6 to 9 kilotons of damage knowing in retaliation you'll have an ICBM dump 4,050 kilotons on you?
The size of an army is totally irrelevant, and I would expect you to know that.
The US had a distinct advantage over Iraq because of technology. The US had satellites parked over Iraq. The US knew exactly were every single Iraqi military unit 24/7.
Yes in fact, I have a copy of Tzu, along with Machiavelli and Frederick the Great within arms reach at this moment, and they are well worn.
I am no specialist in military weapons or some tactical guru, but I know how to research fairly well, and a bit of a student of Game Theory, so I try to look at things in a broader abstract than the general regurgitation offered in press at face value.
I know that there are credible threats, reasonable threats, possible threats, potential threats, and further down the line to the implausible, improbable and ludicrous. Additionally, I try to view everything as though I were standing on the moon viewing some strange planet, with no interest to favor or denounce any sides, but to attempt to see it for what it is. I figure if a person is going to predict or assess a geopolitical situation with any reasonable chance of getting it right, it cannot be viewed through the lens in the same manner people follow politics, choosing sides and throwing stones at the other. As to do so would at best give a person a coin toss chance of getting it right. I would prefer to look at it like an accountant doing an audit and saying, "This is what we got, this is where we stand, and this is what we can do".
I see the United States as thinking very highly of itself which is great for football games but, it relies upon technology probably more than it should. While this places us in a huge advantage compared to most in the world, the technology is only most useful when used by those who best understand it. Having ideologically driven decision makers and analyst in charge of filtering the intelligence and disseminating it higher up the chain is a serious issue and one that persist beyond the mere length of a single Presidents term.
Case in point, William Luti, Michael Rubin, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, Andrew Marshal, Harold Rhode, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, William Bruner, David Wurmser, and F. Michael Maloof, all feeding the desks upstairs of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al. Knowing the background of this group of people and you can have a pretty good idea of what their goals are, thus you have a pretty good idea how the story is going to be written. It is people like these with the will and means which I see are a far greater threat to the country than a clown down south in places like Venezuela.
Yes in fact, I have a copy of Tzu, along with Machiavelli and Frederick the Great within arms reach at this moment, and they are well worn.
I am no specialist in military weapons or some tactical guru, but I know how to research fairly well, and a bit of a student of Game Theory, so I try to look at things in a broader abstract than the general regurgitation offered in press at face value.
I know that there are credible threats, reasonable threats, possible threats, potential threats, and further down the line to the implausible, improbable and ludicrous. Additionally, I try to view everything as though I were standing on the moon viewing some strange planet, with no interest to favor or denounce any sides, but to attempt to see it for what it is. I figure if a person is going to predict or assess a geopolitical situation with any reasonable chance of getting it right, it cannot be viewed through the lens in the same manner people follow politics, choosing sides and throwing stones at the other. As to do so would at best give a person a coin toss chance of getting it right. I would prefer to look at it like an accountant doing an audit and saying, "This is what we got, this is where we stand, and this is what we can do".
I see the United States as thinking very highly of itself which is great for football games but, it relies upon technology probably more than it should. While this places us in a huge advantage compared to most in the world, the technology is only most useful when used by those who best understand it. Having ideologically driven decision makers and analyst in charge of filtering the intelligence and disseminating it higher up the chain is a serious issue and one that persist beyond the mere length of a single Presidents term.
Case in point, William Luti, Michael Rubin, Abram Shulsky, Douglas Feith, Andrew Marshal, Harold Rhode, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, William Bruner, David Wurmser, and F. Michael Maloof, all feeding the desks upstairs of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et al. Knowing the background of this group of people and you can have a pretty good idea of what their goals are, thus you have a pretty good idea how the story is going to be written. It is people like these with the will and means which I see are a far greater threat to the country than a clown down south in places like Venezuela.
I start with NSC 68 and work out from there.
Militarily speaking, anybody can be a threat to us, even a tin pot dictator like Chavez IF they can deny us air superiority over the battle area. Our entire warfighting doctrine is based upon that and without it, we can't do a whole helluva lot. I'm not talking about theater or strategic supremacy, but tactical superiority over the localized area of operations.
With that many ground to air missles, he could conceiveably achieve that just long enough to score a victory. It's not even important that he win the war; just win a victory to show everyone else that he defeated the big, bad American's.
As an example of just how much can be gained from a short-term tactical success, look at how much Hizbollah's stock has risen after having been the first to defeat the previously unbeatable IDF. That was a major blow to Israel, of historic proportions which bodes ill down the road, and it made Hizbollah the dominant power in Lebanon.
If Chavez could bait us into a military response and defeat us, his self-assumed position of leader of the world's anti-American, anti-Western forces would be cemented.
Unless the U.S. wishes to start poking Venezuela in the eye, this is a non-story. Chavez is a little unhinged and paranoid and I doubt he really needs those missiles, but perhaps he is compensating for other, er, shortcomings. Either way, the Venezuelan Navy is not going to land in Biloxi anytime soon.
On the other hand, if the U.S. is committed to aggression against Venezuela, I'm glad the defenders are well-armed.
Militarily speaking, anybody can be a threat to us, even a tin pot dictator like Chavez IF they can deny us air superiority over the battle area. Our entire warfighting doctrine is based upon that and without it, we can't do a whole helluva lot. I'm not talking about theater or strategic supremacy, but tactical superiority over the localized area of operations.
With that many ground to air missles, he could conceiveably achieve that just long enough to score a victory. It's not even important that he win the war; just win a victory to show everyone else that he defeated the big, bad American's.
As an example of just how much can be gained from a short-term tactical success, look at how much Hizbollah's stock has risen after having been the first to defeat the previously unbeatable IDF. That was a major blow to Israel, of historic proportions which bodes ill down the road, and it made Hizbollah the dominant power in Lebanon.
If Chavez could bait us into a military response and defeat us, his self-assumed position of leader of the world's anti-American, anti-Western forces would be cemented.
This first assumes that the United States would see Venezuela as a credible enough threat to warrant a response in which we placed sufficient military assets in a position to get shot down in the first place.
As to the second bold, if the United States is stupid enough to let Chavez goad us into a military action, then the threat isn't from Venezuela, it is from people in our own government who are too stupid to have a drivers license, let along making decisions involving military forces.
In times of real danger you will hear the government tell you not to be afraid, in times of little danger the government will tell you to fear everything.
Take speeches like FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself" and Winston Churchill's "We will have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst - and we will do our best."
When in times of little danger the message is slightly different, "Axis of Evil" and "We need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" (also very effective on third graders with learning disabilities.)
Today Americans are told to fear third world tin pots as being a threat to our civilization and I'm sorry but it just isn't true. This would be like the people in England trying to sell the Revolutionary War to their people by saying the American's could sail across the sea and wipe out the British empire. The only threat to the British empire was going broke from trying to prevent what never could have happened in the first place, much like were doing now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
