Modern airbursting nukes are relatively clean, compared to the bombs dropped on Japan. The only reason there would have been a lot of fallout in a Cold War nuclear exchange was all the groundbursting nukes used to take out underground missile silos.
Five seconds of googling. Fallout isn't magical radiation beams, it's irradiated material like dust or dirt. The sort of high-altitude burst used to level a city puts a lot of distance between the ground and location of the blast; the flattening pressure wave and heat does the damage, and the radioactive material ends up distributed over such a large area that the effects are mostly negated; maybe if it's a cloudy day, you get a little radioactive rain. By contrast, a ground burst irradiates the ground while kicking it up in a big deadly cloud of irradiatedness that drifts around and does bad stuff.
In modern bombs, the reaction is much more complete than in older bombs, which is why they are "cleaner". Compared to a modern hydrogen bomb, the stuff dropped on Japan was almost like those dirty bombs teh terroistz will use to take our freedoms and stuff.
Ron Paul's better than anything else on the playing field. I think if we elected him, we would actually see soldiers coming home instead of Obama's massive increases. Sure, 85% of what he says is crazy -- "lets build a big fence with machine guns. That'll keep 'em out!" "I don't think anyone here wants to be doing heroin, so let's legalize it!" -- but that's the same 85% he can't get done anyway. Problem is, Paul has never and will never have a real chance of getting the nomination.
Ron Paul's better than anything else on the playing field. I think if we elected him, we would actually see soldiers coming home instead of Obama's massive increases. Sure, 85% of what he says is crazy -- "lets build a big fence with machine guns. That'll keep 'em out!" "I don't think anyone here wants to be doing heroin, so let's legalize it!" -- but that's the same 85% he can't get done anyway. Problem is, Paul has never and will never have a real chance of getting the nomination.
Not at all. Paul's attempts to perform the crazy will lead to a Congressional deadlock that will result in complete government inaction for four years, while the economy turns to shit. All that will happen are massive tax cuts and deregulation that will eventually destroy the American government and economy.
Ron Paul's better than anything else on the playing field. I think if we elected him, we would actually see soldiers coming home instead of Obama's massive increases.
He wants to shutdown every U.S. base overseas. EVERY. ONE. That's fucking crazy.
Ron Paul is a radical US isolationist with policies designed to thrust the US back into some fucking fever dream version of Pre-FDR America. It would be the equivalent of giving a misty-eyed WWII veteran with PTSD the reins of the entire country.
Ron Paul's better than anything else on the playing field. I think if we elected him, we would actually see soldiers coming home instead of Obama's massive increases.
He wants to shutdown every U.S. base overseas. EVERY. ONE. That's fucking crazy.
Where do we need to be? We invented the UN so that we wouldn't have to be the world police. There's only a few places I can think of we should be, and even if we left, it wouldn't be disastrous. Think about the sheer amount of money we would save. We could triple NASA's budget without breaking a sweat. Maybe things wouldn't be great, but things would be more interesting. Besides, he's the only man in politics who knows that there's no money in domestic spending, and if you want cuts you need to look at the military.
Force projection and defense treaties are vital part of foreign policy. Leaving many our bases will piss off a lot of people. Not to mention severely change the balance of power in many areas of the world. Like it or not, this is the way things are.
Besides, he's the only man in politics who knows that there's no money in domestic spending
Funding public education pays large dividends in the future.
Force projection and defense treaties are vital part of foreign policy. Leaving many our bases will piss off a lot of people. Not to mention severely change the balance of power in many areas of the world. Like it or not, this is the way things are.
Let me repeat: Where do we need to be? You have given a sheet answer, not something with specific examples.
Besides, he's the only man in politics who knows that there's no money in domestic spending
Funding public education pays large dividends in the future.
Perhaps I phrased this poorly. I don't mean there shouldn't be any money in domestic spending, I mean that if one wants to make large cuts to the budget -- an agenda that I think we can all respect if we don't agree with it -- then you can't try to take money away from domestic programs. things like medicare, public education, social security, etc. are running on a minimal budget. The Post Office is going out of business, for Christ's sake! If one wants to reduce debt with spending cuts, they need to look outward at how much we spend on defense. Paul knows to do this, which is why I would support him if it did him any good.
Let me repeat: Where do we need to be? You have given a sheet answer, not something with specific examples.
Any you fucking kidding me? Pretty much every NATO state covered by the nuclear umbrella. Japan. South Korea. The Polynesian Islands. Certain areas of SE Asia and Africa.
If one wants to reduce debt with spending cuts, they need to look outward at how much we spend on defense. Paul knows to do this, which is why I would support him if it did him any good.
Yes, but closing the bases isn't the answer, ending military spending is. The majority of military spending is done on R&D; (including R&D; with peacetime applications, like quantum computing, which we should continue to support) and on arsenal building (things like spending $50 million to purchase ten Tomahawk missiles). If we mostly stopped purely-military R&D; (like the B3 bomber, which has an onboard chemical laser, and which we mostly have no real need for) and started using the stuff in our arsenal presently, we could shave trillions off of military spending.
Perhaps I phrased this poorly. I don't mean there shouldn't be any money in domestic spending, I mean that if one wants to make large cuts to the budget -- an agenda that I think we can all respect if we don't agree with it -- then you can't try to take money away from domestic programs. things like medicare, public education, social security, etc. are running on a minimal budget. The Post Office is going out of business, for Christ's sake! If one wants to reduce debt with spending cuts, they need to look outward at how much we spend on defense. Paul knows to do this, which is why I would support him if it did him any good.
Balancing a budget by pure cuts is crazy. If you were actually serious about balancing the budget you'd increase tax revenue as well. Also, many lolz at you saying that medicare and social security run on a minimal budget.
If we mostly stopped purely-military R&D; (like the B3 bomber, which has an onboard chemical laser, and which we mostly have no real need for) and started using the stuff in our arsenal presently, we could shave trillions off of military spending.
This, and the useless F-22 that's never been used.
The problem with American military presence is sustainability. The generals in charge now are talking about needing a massive 30-year global campaign chasing more limber, more determined, more desperate terrorist cells to ever-changing hotspots. We can't pay for that. We can't afford it monetarily, and frankly it's not worth the human capital. We avenged 2,995 Sept. 11 victims by throwing 6,000 more into the fire. That's not math I can get behind.
In my eyes, we do need to be more isolationist and less isolationist. We need to stop carrying that big stick like a club and start using it more like a police baton. Instead of waging wars of revenge, we need to send smaller, more flexible, more specialized enforcer units to help oppressed peoples in Africa. I'm talking long-term humanitarian military actions where soldiers choose to live in oppressed communities and help build schools, sewers, hospitals, etc. Forgive the religious reference, but I'm thinking armed missionaries of democracy. Can you think of a better way to curry international favor and improve America's image?
The generals in charge now are talking about needing a massive 30-year global campaign chasing more limber, more determined, more desperate terrorist cells to ever-changing hotspots.
Which ones?
I'm talking long-term humanitarian military actions where soldiers choose to live in oppressed communities and help build schools, sewers, hospitals, etc. Forgive the religious reference, but I'm thinking armed missionaries of democracy.
Sorry, but the military isn't the fucking Red Cross. They should never be working on infrastructure projects. This is what the U.N. was designed to do. If you want to fix that, bring it up with them. Actually, I won't forgive the reference. This type of involvement only pisses people off. We cannot presume to think we know better than these people on how to run their own country. The military should stay out unless there are clear and credible signs that a humanitarian crisis such as genocide is occurring. Even then our involvement should be limited to pure security and military operations.
Can you think of a better way to curry international favor and improve America's image?
Yeah, don't get involved in shit unless you have broad regional and international support. Honestly, Lybia should be the model for U.S. involvement in the future. We have support from both traditional western countries as well as the Arab League. We let local powers (France, Italy) lead the charge and make serious investments. U.S. involvement has been limited to tactical ballistic missile and drone strikes to eliminate air defense systems and hard targets. The ground war was left to the local populace who took responsibility for their own future. Furthermore, we've (so far) maintained a fairly apolitical stance on internal politics.
Forgive the religious reference, but I'm thinking armed missionaries of democracy. Can you think of a better way to curry international favor and improve America's image?
Sorry, but the military isn't the fucking Red Cross.
Why not?
They should never be working on infrastructure projects.
Why not?
This is what the U.N. was designed to do.
It's not doing fucking shit in Rwanda.
Actually, I won't forgive the reference.
I don't require your forgiveness.
This type of involvement only pisses people off.
They seem to be pissed off at us for all kinds of reasons. I would think humanitarian assistance would be the least of these.
We cannot presume to think we know better than these people on how to run their own country.
Sure we do. The Somalians are doing a pretty bad job.
The military should stay out unless there are clear and credible signs that a humanitarian crisis such as genocide is occurring.
Yes, let's wait until lots of people are already dead, THEN throw our hats into the ring. After all, that's what we did in Iraq.
Yeah, don't get involved in shit unless you have broad regional and international support.
I'll bet we'd get all kinds of support for sending a unit of 10 army engineers to help guard/supervise the construction of a hospital and some wells in Ghana.
U.S. involvement has been limited to tactical ballistic missile and drone strikes to eliminate air defense systems and hard targets. The ground war was left to the local populace who took responsibility for their own future. Furthermore, we've (so far) maintained a fairly apolitical stance on internal politics.
A one-size-fits-all approach won't work. What about countries where the health and financial disparities are too great between tribal peasants and dictators? You're not going to see small, spread-out, malnourished villages in central Africa rise up and use their spears to take out heavily armed, mobile, and well-fed robber barons.
Forgive the religious reference, but I'm thinking armed missionaries of democracy. Can you think of a better way to curry international favor and improve America's image?
That's actually a pretty cool idea.
I'm pretty sure we tried that in Vietnam, and it didn't work. And yes, I'm completely ignoring the various other reasons why we went to war there. The point is, the word "missionary" in any context makes me leery, because from what I know of history proselytizing usually backfires.
I'm quite familiar with how missionaries fuck shit up. I'm thinking more of something like UN Peacekeepers with the authority to use force to maintain the security of the areas they guard.
Like you said, you're ignoring the reasons we went to Vietnam, and also the reasons we never should have. They didn't want or need us.
I'm not talking about the message they're delivering. I'm talking about the methodology. The Jesuits used to send tiny groups of or even lone missionaries to remote corners of the known world to live among the people. They built fortresses, they taught people to read, the helped spread new methods of planting/irrigation. They often acted as doctors or judges.
Why can't we send squads of "missionary" soldiers to 10-year deployments to the small African villages to provide security for or advisement for civic projects, or to keep pirates/warlords away from small towns?
Because it's by definition an organization authorized to fuck shit up. They are neither trained in humanitarian operations nor organized to do so. Furthermore, to have them actually perform those duties weakens our defensive and strategic abilities. Sure, we are pretty OK at helping during crisis such as the Japan earthquake, but any long term infrastructure operations are not their responsibility. If you want that functionality so bad, create some sort of Peace Corps. Oh wait...
A one-size-fits-all approach won't work. What about countries where the health and financial disparities are too great between tribal peasants and dictators? You're not going to see small, spread-out, malnourished villages in central Africa rise up and use their spears to take out heavily armed, mobile, and well-fed robber barons.
How do you think these robber barons and dictators stay in power? By stealing aid money and securing food shipments. What you are asking for will require enormous infrastructure in terms of strategic and tactical deployment, supplies, military infrastructure, etc. You just can't send in a platoon to build a house. What happens if they get attacked? What happens if these paramilitary groups begin an insurgency campaign. You think Afghanistan is bad?
Ron Paul's better than anything else on the playing field.
No he is absolutely fucking not.
I think if we elected him, we would actually see soldiers coming home instead of Obama's massive increases.
Yeah, that big machinegun fence he wants to build? That's why he wants to withdraw the millitary from overseas. He's an isolationist, and basically wants to use the US military to close off and fortify the US border. I can't say for sure, but it's pretty likely this is at least in part because he belives in the whole "New world order/illuminati taking over the world" conspiracy theory.
"I don't think anyone here wants to be doing heroin, so let's legalize it!" -- but that's the same 85% he can't get done anyway.
Yes, it's nice that he wants to legalize all drugs, but remember one of the biggest arguments for legalizing drugs - Tax revenue. Legalizing and taxing drugs would provide billions of dollars worth of revenue - oh wait, Ron Paul also wants to abolish ALL taxes. Which makes the idea far less practical and appealing.
Problem is, Paul has never and will never have a real chance of getting the nomination.
You and I, it seems we have a wildly different definition of the word "Problem."
Where do we need to be? We invented the UN so that we wouldn't have to be the world police.
You didn't invent the UN. The Precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, failed to prevent World War 2, and thus, a replacement was sought - the major involvement from the US is that FDR in part came up with the first concrete plan and came up with the name "United Nations." As for America being the world police - So, tell me, do you also suffer the delusion that the US singlehandedly won WW2? Because they're delusions of equal grandeur. The UN is a worldwide organization with goals and activities in everything from International Law to economic development and social progress, they're hardly a "World Police" to begin with, even less so than the US was the world police or thought of themselves as such in 1945 - I do seem to recall that the US didn't show up in any serious way in WW2 until they were attacked directly, not very "world police" like behavior, there. More like the behavior of someone who is trying to stay the fuck out of it.
There's only a few places I can think of we should be, and even if we left, it wouldn't be disastrous. Think about the sheer amount of money we would save. We could triple NASA's budget without breaking a sweat.
No, you couldn't - because Paul wants to use the millitary to fortify the US border, which doesn't mean you'd be spending much less money, just spending it in a different place. A place where you become North Korea, but bigger, and with more nukes.
Besides, he's the only man in politics who knows that there's no money in domestic spending, and if you want cuts you need to look at the military.
He's also one of the few men in politics who wants to return to the Gold standard for currency - despite being alive when it nearly fucked your economy the first time, in fact, it's part of the reason he entered politics - he wants to cut literally every social program, abolish the minimum wage, abolish all taxes, and so on. I don't think he actually knows there is no money in domestic spending, I think he just talks a good game to try and convince people round to his fucking lunatic side.
Let me repeat: Where do we need to be? You have given a sheet answer, not something with specific examples.
You're not asking me, so I shan't answer your question, but I will provide some additional information - Ron Paul also wants to pull out of the UN and ban them from US soil, he also wants to pull out of NATO, and every other international organization going, Military, humanitarian or otherwise.
Perhaps I phrased this poorly. I don't mean there shouldn't be any money in domestic spending, I mean that if one wants to make large cuts to the budget -- an agenda that I think we can all respect if we don't agree with it -- then you can't try to take money away from domestic programs. things like medicare, public education, social security, etc. are running on a minimal budget. The Post Office is going out of business, for Christ's sake! If one wants to reduce debt with spending cuts, they need to look outward at how much we spend on defense. Paul knows to do this, which is why I would support him if it did him any good.
I say again - He wants to cut every single one of those programs. Not just cut the fat out of the budget, cut them entirely. Sure, he wants to save money by doing many things, but you need to understand that he's not putting this into medicare or social programs, he's getting rid of them entirely.
Oh, and of course, let's not forget, other than that, and the conspiracy theories, he's also an serious racist(and not in the "adorable old people racisim" way), a sexist(he loves the idea of a small government, but not small enough that it can't tell women what to do with their bodies), very homophobic(He's put forward more than one anti-gay rights bill now, and is on the record as having said that it would be better if gay people were the way they were before - deep in the closet, afraid to come out, and hiding their activities), and Anti-science(he doesn't believe in evolution, he's a climate change denier, he's anti-vax, and so on.)
a sexist(he loves the idea of a small government, but not small enough that it can't tell women what to do with their bodies)
The best way I've ever heard this phenomenon is "[Person x] believes in small government. In government so small, he can take it and shove it up a woman's vagina."
Comments
In modern bombs, the reaction is much more complete than in older bombs, which is why they are "cleaner". Compared to a modern hydrogen bomb, the stuff dropped on Japan was almost like those dirty bombs teh terroistz will use to take our freedoms and stuff.
But no, really, Ron Paul would be an absolute disaster.
The problem with American military presence is sustainability. The generals in charge now are talking about needing a massive 30-year global campaign chasing more limber, more determined, more desperate terrorist cells to ever-changing hotspots. We can't pay for that. We can't afford it monetarily, and frankly it's not worth the human capital. We avenged 2,995 Sept. 11 victims by throwing 6,000 more into the fire. That's not math I can get behind.
In my eyes, we do need to be more isolationist and less isolationist. We need to stop carrying that big stick like a club and start using it more like a police baton. Instead of waging wars of revenge, we need to send smaller, more flexible, more specialized enforcer units to help oppressed peoples in Africa. I'm talking long-term humanitarian military actions where soldiers choose to live in oppressed communities and help build schools, sewers, hospitals, etc. Forgive the religious reference, but I'm thinking armed missionaries of democracy. Can you think of a better way to curry international favor and improve America's image?
Like you said, you're ignoring the reasons we went to Vietnam, and also the reasons we never should have. They didn't want or need us.
Why can't we send squads of "missionary" soldiers to 10-year deployments to the small African villages to provide security for or advisement for civic projects, or to keep pirates/warlords away from small towns?
EDIT: "White man's burden" anyone?
Oh, and of course, let's not forget, other than that, and the conspiracy theories, he's also an serious racist(and not in the "adorable old people racisim" way), a sexist(he loves the idea of a small government, but not small enough that it can't tell women what to do with their bodies), very homophobic(He's put forward more than one anti-gay rights bill now, and is on the record as having said that it would be better if gay people were the way they were before - deep in the closet, afraid to come out, and hiding their activities), and Anti-science(he doesn't believe in evolution, he's a climate change denier, he's anti-vax, and so on.)