That can be my fail of the day. Hell let's get the special forces who are in the area to confirm the chemical weapons and get surgical strikes targeted on them.
Nukes are best used to scare the shit out of anyone else who would even think of using nukes, chemical weapons, etc., against you. If they were to actually be used in anger, a sane person would only use them as a counter-strike against another WMD attack (ignoring the case of WW2, when we honestly had no idea how insanely devastating nukes would be). That's basically the whole premise of mutually assured destruction -- if you nuke/gas/etc. me, I'll nuke you right back, and then we're both utterly fucked.
For a pre-emptive strike, dropping massive quantities of thermobaric bombs or just carpet bombing with plain-ol' dumb bombs would certainly accomplish the same goal without the whole nuclear stigma and without leaving fallout that could have far-reaching effects beyond simply "glassing" the attack zone. One thing to keep in mind is that as devastating as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they weren't as devastating as some of the heaviest conventional bombing raids against parts of Germany and Tokyo were. What made them so devastating was a combination of the radioactive fallout and the fact that a single bomb did the damage, as opposed to dropping hundreds of bombs.
In the case of Syria, remember, we're doing it to help the rebels there against the Assad regime. We wouldn't be helping them all that much if we render the cities they plan to move into once Assad is gone into nuclear wastelands.
Nukes are best used to scare the shit out of anyone else who would even think of using nukes, chemical weapons, etc., against you. If they were to actually be used in anger, a sane person would only use them as a counter-strike against another WMD attack (ignoring the case of WW2, when we honestly had no idea how insanely devastating nukes would be). That's basically the whole premise of mutually assured destruction -- if you nuke/gas/etc. me, I'll nuke you right back, and then we're both utterly fucked.
For a pre-emptive strike, dropping massive quantities of thermobaric bombs or just carpet bombing with plain-ol' dumb bombs would certainly accomplish the same goal without the whole nuclear stigma and without leaving fallout that could have far-reaching effects beyond simply "glassing" the attack zone. One thing to keep in mind is that as devastating as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they weren't as devastating as some of the heaviest conventional bombing raids against parts of Germany and Tokyo were. What made them so devastating was a combination of the radioactive fallout and the fact that a single bomb did the damage, as opposed to dropping hundreds of bombs.
In the case of Syria, remember, we're doing it to help the rebels there against the Assad regime. We wouldn't be helping them all that much if we render the cities they plan to move into once Assad is gone into nuclear wastelands.
That's all true, but we'd not be doing the rebels much better of a service because we'd still be leveling a city with conventional weapons. Provided of course we'd planning to go all shock and awe, rather than precision strike 500 pounders on laser-designated targets.
Also, civilian casualties of any use of nuclear weapons would really make us the bad guy. They're going to have to come up with something more strategic.
That's all true, but we'd not be doing the rebels much better of a service because we'd still be leveling a city with conventional weapons. Provided of course we'd planning to go all shock and awe, rather than precision strike 500 pounders on laser-designated targets.
Does anyone else see the problem with using explosives on a stockpile of chemical agents? I would think that any sort of strike would just release said agents into the surrounding environment (a city full of non combatants) anyways.
Even if you could be certain all the friendlies and civvies were evacuated, the cleanup would still be a bitch.
Jesus fucking Christ, don't even think about using nukes. Watch When the Wind Blows, then come back and tell me that nukes are a grand idea for using. Read the wikipedia entry on fallout and the Chernobyl disaster and all the subsequent side effects that had. People couldn't drink milk even if they lived WAY outside of the Chernobyl disaster because the radiation had gotten into the grass that then the cows ate that made their milk radioactive and dangerous.
You drop 3 nukes, you're releasing a fucking massive amount of energy into the environment as well as flattening areas. You're going to fuck up weather patterns, kill people with fallout, kill people with secondary radiation through radiation sickness, cause birth defects in the next generation, then poop on the land to make sure no one uses it for decades.
We have FAR better things to flatten areas. Check it, foo'. BLU-82
That's all true, but we'd not be doing the rebels much better of a service because we'd still be leveling a city with conventional weapons. Provided of course we'd planning to go all shock and awe, rather than precision strike 500 pounders on laser-designated targets.
A good point as well. I was specifically referring to the best way to "glass" an area with minimal other effects. In the case of Syria, "glassing" is certainly not the best way to go about it. Hell, even if Assad were to use chemical weapons, I don't think it would justify the use of nukes due to the specific circumstances in Syria. An approach similar to what we've done in Iraq would be much more appropriate -- laser and GPS-guided precision weapons of appropriate sizes to take out their respective targets combined with limited carpet bombing where appropriate.
We have FAR better things to flatten areas. Check it, foo'. BLU-82
Obsoleted and replaced by the GBU-43/B MOAB. Although, even the MOAB isn't the best way to flatten an area -- it's "bang for the buck" (no pun intended) isn't that great, although it's pretty awesome that a single conventional bomb can do that much damage. Good ol' fashioned WW2-style carpet bombing is still the most effective way to flatten a large area using conventional weapons.
It's possible that Syria may have acquired Iraq's supply of VX at some point along the road. Hard to know for sure though.
Supposedly though, Iraq didn't have all that much VX anyway as they struggled producing the stuff. Sarin is much easier to produce (a Japanese death cult was able to produce the stuff back in the 90's) and still pretty damned nasty.
It's possible that Syria may have acquired Iraq's supply of VX at some point along the road. Hard to know for sure though.
Supposedly though, Iraq didn't have all that much VX anyway as they struggled producing the stuff. Sarin is much easier to produce (a Japanese death cult was able to produce the stuff back in the 90's) and still pretty damned nasty.
Also the blister agents. Nothing says "We are inhuman monsters who will stop at nothing to kill people in the most horrifying way imaginable" like a compound that covers victims in excruciatingly painful baseball-sized blisters, then makes their skin slough off, then gives them cancer.
From what I understand, blistering agents are often used as secondary payloads for nerve agents to irritate and force the soldiers to remove their MOP gear, forcing inhalation of the more potent aerosols. Brutal stuff.
Surely the numbers of people killed are much more important than the way in which they die.
You could probably make some sort of formula to weigh the number of people killed vs the way they died divided by the media coverage and multiplied by how pretty the people were before they died and get some sort of overall horror index.
The relevant question is one of harm, not horror. What you're talking about is a matter of public perception, and in that regard it's clear that the number of people killed has much less impact on that.
However, the actions of governments are much more influenced by public perception than by the actual harm, and so if that's what you want to predict the "horror" metric is useful.
It's possible that Syria may have acquired Iraq's supply of VX at some point along the road. Hard to know for sure though.
Supposedly though, Iraq didn't have all that much VX anyway as they struggled producing the stuff. Sarin is much easier to produce (a Japanese death cult was able to produce the stuff back in the 90's) and still pretty damned nasty.
Theres also the old mustard gas and chlorine.
Never said those weren't nasty either. I was limiting things to VX specifically. They work differently, but none of them are pleasant (although I think chlorine at least disperses much more quickly than mustard gas and VX).
Also the blister agents. Nothing says "We are inhuman monsters who will stop at nothing to kill people in the most horrifying way imaginable" like a compound that covers victims in excruciatingly painful baseball-sized blisters, then makes their skin slough off, then gives them cancer.
What's worse is that they do that to your lungs when you inhale them...
From what I understand, blistering agents are often used as secondary payloads for nerve agents to irritate and force the soldiers to remove their MOP gear, forcing inhalation of the more potent aerosols. Brutal stuff.
I seem to remember that they used a tactic like that during the Iran-Iraq war. They would use a cocktail of cyanide, mustard gas and some other nasty shit to keep a permanent cloud around preventing renforcements from getting though. All of which is pretty nasty which ever way you cut it.
At least you have the two seeds. Trying to get All This and World War II, my download speed would occasionally drop to 0mb/s because people stopped seeding it. Also, no torrents exist for any of Minoru Kawasaki's work that hasn't already been licensed for legitimate release in the US.
I assume you are referring to Kani Goalkeeper? Should I ever come across a torrent or download, you will be the first to know.
EDIT: While I'm on the subject, I can never wrap my mind around the fact that Kani Goalkeeper got a pass, yet World Sinks Except Japan was chosen to be released here. WSEJ is so inaccessible and Kani Goalkeeper is so easy to grasp.
According to his IMDb, he's directed 16 films, 4 shorts, and a TV series.
Someone in the vicinity of my cube area has their phone/device/whatever on "beep on every freaking thing" mode and is writing a freaking novel or something. Its been about 30 mins now and I'm going to asplode with raging annoyance! Why can't you put it on silent?? This is an office with other people occupying space trying to do work!!! >_<
So sick. Been sleeping more or less since 9am. My lab director was super-cool and gave me a pass on the lab today and extensions on everything, but my oral presentation partner is still feeling put out. I feel guilty, but my head feels packed with styrofoam and my intestines have basically said "LOL, we're taking the day off, bro," so whatever.
Also, augmentin appears to be fucking with my gut fauna hardcore.
Comments
For a pre-emptive strike, dropping massive quantities of thermobaric bombs or just carpet bombing with plain-ol' dumb bombs would certainly accomplish the same goal without the whole nuclear stigma and without leaving fallout that could have far-reaching effects beyond simply "glassing" the attack zone. One thing to keep in mind is that as devastating as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, they weren't as devastating as some of the heaviest conventional bombing raids against parts of Germany and Tokyo were. What made them so devastating was a combination of the radioactive fallout and the fact that a single bomb did the damage, as opposed to dropping hundreds of bombs.
In the case of Syria, remember, we're doing it to help the rebels there against the Assad regime. We wouldn't be helping them all that much if we render the cities they plan to move into once Assad is gone into nuclear wastelands.
Even if you could be certain all the friendlies and civvies were evacuated, the cleanup would still be a bitch.
You drop 3 nukes, you're releasing a fucking massive amount of energy into the environment as well as flattening areas. You're going to fuck up weather patterns, kill people with fallout, kill people with secondary radiation through radiation sickness, cause birth defects in the next generation, then poop on the land to make sure no one uses it for decades.
We have FAR better things to flatten areas. Check it, foo'. BLU-82
Environmental impact and other non-killing harm to humans are a serious issue, though, given the huge spread and lasting effects.
That would be a little cold though.
However, the actions of governments are much more influenced by public perception than by the actual harm, and so if that's what you want to predict the "horror" metric is useful.
/vent
Also, augmentin appears to be fucking with my gut fauna hardcore.