The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe!

[deerslayer]

and while SAMS have the advantage in numbers in aircraft, missiles have the ability to be spoofed, and do not have the advantage in a turning fight with a modern aircraft. So, don't expect huge surface to air casualties.

 

[gladius]

If you keep firing back with all guns, you will eventually run out of ammunition. I sort of like the tenacity, however. Keep it up. Since I think that you are a rather sensitive person, and I am not here to cut off any heads, I would like to stress that this post is not intended to put you down, or Christians, or anyone. I only want to point out some theoretical issues.

boohoohoohoo I sooo sensitve I can't take. Hahhahahha did you really think that would work?

I can fire back with all guns, and I will nevre run out of ammo because the facts and evidence are on my side as I have proven time and time again.

You have no fact to spare so you resort to cheap tricks and esoterics as seen in this post.

I have noticed that conceptual verification does not work for you. If you argue that Europe will be dependent on Muslim oil in 50 years, and someone points out that there are alternatives, you argue that Europe will not alter their current system because they have not done so in the past. Your argument, and the matter of oil is only one aspect of many, is therefore "modernist" in tone.

Isn't that conceptual verification does not work for you either. What you are arguing against me is excatly what you are doing. You imagine the world to be a certian way according to you left-wing socialist philosophies, and you ignore all evidence I have so far shown, to still believe to you want. So you are even more guilty of this.

Furthermore, I never said Europe will be dependant on oil in 50 years. Already you are making stuff up. The projection for this scenario was only 20 years, give or take a few years.

Modernism: What is modernism? The modern period was the period of ideologies such as communism, fascism and nazism. Each of them offered a way of looking at history (historical materialism or social-darwinism) using what seemed a mysterious structure guiding human "development" (another modernist perspective). You propose the "Mahdi ideology" which is more reminiscent of the so-called Christian “End Times” or the eschatological belief that history as we know it will end in a titanic struggle between good and evil whereby Satan mobilizes the human masses against Jesus. I do not want to discuss the “End Times”. I only want to point out that your argument fails to surmount all of the obstacles normally found in any ideology. It is in a sense even cruder because the idea only takes a few elements of the Christian concept of Apocalypse (ie. Armageddon) and attempts to construct a prediction of the future using very selective judgments concerning the “evidence”. All contradictions are rejected.

None of my arguments fail to surmount any obstacle. In fact I have refuted all yours so you resort to this stuff. And I never even brought up end time in any discuss with you.

Beisdes, who cares what I believe.

Fact---the Muslims believe in the Mahdi prophecy. ...Something which you still refuse to take into consideration.

There is a billion of them and they will try to make it happen.

So its really not about me.

Ideology: What is an ideology? Hannah Arendt: "An ideology is quite literally what its name indicates: it is the logic of an idea. Its subject matter is history, to which the 'idea' is applied; the result of this application is not a body of statements about something that is, but the unfolding of a process which is in constant change. The ideology treats the course of events as though it followed the same 'law' as the logical exposition of its 'idea.' Ideologies pretend to know the mysteries of the whole historical process -- the secrets of the past, the intricacies of the present, the uncertainties of the future -- because of the logic inherent in their respective ideas". This definition matches the "Mahdi ideology".

This is evidence of exactly why the Muslims will do their best to try to fullfill the Mahdi prophecy.

Your own evidence works against you.

The Problems: One of the problems with modernist techniques is that the study of history cannot be made scientific. Science generally attempts to study something using an hypothesis, testing the hypothesis, and creating a model whereby the hypothesis is reproducible. But history is too complex to create a system whereby the future can be forecast. There are too many variables and possibilities for alternative outcomes. Using the case of European energy, it is easily demonstrated that (1) Europe imports heavily from Russia, (2) Indigenous oil is important, (3) Europe is developing significant alternatives such as bio-diesel or solar energy, and that (4) European politicians are in any case very keen on avoiding any dependency on the Muslim oil producers. You probably discount these "elements" of the problem BECAUSE they do not fit with your model concerning the future. Your "historicism" is leading you to interpret current developments in such a way as to fit the desired end of history. The notion that humans can understand the past in order to predict the future is utterly deceptive and, I am sorry to say, typical of fundamentalist Christian perspectives.

You got nothing left so you resort to cheap accusations, this is typical of someone who has got no argument.

You can say what you want regarding Euro oil dependance. The evidence to to contrary is against you.

The Euro-Arab trade is dependant that the Middle East sell oil, because the Arabs have no other income otherwise. If they can't sell anymore oil then the economy also importing from Europe to the Middle East collapses.

With its plan to introduce a monetary union in 2010 the economies of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) endeavour on a project that is surpassed only by the European monetary integration.


This development is of interest to Germany and Europe for a number of reasons. Firstly, the six GCC member countries Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are by far the most important trading partners for Germany in the Arab World, accounting for nearly 55% of German exports to the Arab region in 2004.


--- Dr Hans Georg Fabritius, Deutsche Bundesbank


The economy of Eroupe and Arabia are hoplessly tied together to not buy oil from the Arabs. Even if they import from Russia or make alt fuels they will still import a good amount of oil, contrarty to your fantasies.

Also, typical fundamentalist Christian perspectives are; that a New World Order coming from Europe will dominate the world and start world domination not the Muslims, so again you really don't know what you are talking about.

Modernism is not Truth: The actual verification of concepts becomes irrelevant. You might think that you are offering accurate and sufficient evidence, but you are in reality only coming back to the initial hypothesis. That is, the possibility that Europe could develop new technologies is unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe. The possibility that the Muslim world could change and become more passive is discounted as unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe. The contemporary weakness of the Middle-East is unimportant because the Mahdi will attack Europe (etc.) What matters is (1) the belief that the future will unfold exactly as envisioned, (2) that all evidence will bend to fit the theory, and (3) that nothing can be done to change the future. This historical determinism is ahistorical (counter to the teachings of the historical discipline) because the discipline emphasizes the utter complexity of all human actions. History cannot predict the future. It is also highly “modernist” in that the proponents wanted “to reveal official history as a joke, to demonstrate a sphere of secret influences of which the visible, tracable, and known historical reality was only the outward façade erected explicitly to fool the people”. (Hannah Arendt)

The contemporary weakness of the Middle-East is unimportant, because I was not discussing the contempory Middle-East. I was discussing it from a standpoint of a united fanatical empire, something that can overcome alot of contemporary weakness.

You are telling me this crap, yet you youserlf belive, Europe despite contemporary weakness which is evident in trend, will simply bypass this, you are way more guilty of what you accuse (as we have already seen).

Not mention you your are saying, History cannot predict the future. Then why is the saying "History repeats itself", be so quoted throught the years. Maybe they know more than you, don't they.

So according to your misguided philosophy, you are saying if someone has a history of having panic attacks when he sees spiders, and I put a spider next to himand without him going through somekind of major psycholical change, he will not take it to seriously and merely flick it away, sure he will.

The EMP was your last card wasn't it, when I disproved that, you had nothing left so you try to razmatazz me with this garbage.

 

[gladius]

Although an EMP is possible if released overhead, it will not be nearly at a magnatude of what you are saying. To create an EMP that will short out communication networks (not lamp posts) across an entire continent, you will need a 20 megaton nuke detonated at 400 km. This attack would not permanantly damage it though, at that altitude the EMP would weaken enough (especially when you hit dense air) that it would knockout devices..........for a few minutes.....maybe an hour. Since I cant remeber the muslims having a 20 megaton nuke. At the same time, a missile going up to 400 km would be easily detected and destroyed by one of our missles.

You are an idiot. Try one megaton.

So you are saying the nations top scientist are wrong and you are right?

I aready showed the evidence concerning this if you still want to say thats its not true, then all I can say is you are living in outer-space.

If you refuse to take scientific knowledge and evidence into account and substitute them with whatever you want, then I can't take you seriously.

Also, quick question on economics for you. If what you say is true, then why would any metal be reconstituted. 75% of the metal we use today is recycled from scrap. I mean, the people who mine metal and process it would just lower prices to maintain competative....right? Wrong, because the price to reconstitute is much lower then to mine it. The same is true of oil. It costs a lot of money to drill for oil, then to purify and ship it. If cost efficient alt. fuels could be made in a labratory, then a company with labs could lower the price lower then oil companies could afford to lower it. That is the basis of mass production: If something is harder to produce or extract, it will be more expensive.

As for vehicles it doesnt matter what weapons you mount on it, they wont work. Its like trying to drop a brand new V8 in an old VW bug....it just wont work. You can not refurbish a 70+ year old vehicle to modern standards....especially in combat situations.

As for the lasers as anti-missile, we actually have some. The US government just bought 10 747s, and mounted them with a laser on the nose for taking down missiles. Unfortunatly, it isnbt on their site yet, but I saw the article in this month's popular mechanics magazine.

I already know about the Boeing anti-missile laser, thats for balistic missles, the Sunburn is a level cruise missle.

Also I have question for you, why are we still using both scrap metal and mined metal, if scrap metal is so cheap? The metal industry has been recycling metal for 150 years, the infrastructure is there as is part of an enomic system. You are saying Europe is going to convert in one year after the US, come back down from planet zoomdweebee.

As for the rest of you questions come back down form outerspace and back to reality before we have anymore discussion. You don't seem to have a clue, or even want to accept what is real an what is not. You know what, just go read the thread.

You must be in the 6th or 7th grade or something, if you are at least you have an excuse for staing the kind of views you have.

and while SAMS have the advantage in numbers in aircraft, missiles have the ability to be spoofed, and do not have the advantage in a turning fight with a modern aircraft. So, don't expect huge surface to air casualties.

I didn't say huge amounts, but enough where the attrition rate will may not match the enemies.

Besides the EMP will severly hamper communications, so how are they going to coordinate the the bombings, this ability may be affected. Furthermore they are going to be fighting over such a broad area where air power may not be able to cover. If air power is used then they will save it for the critical areas, allowing enemy advances in others. Like I pointed out, in Kuwait they didn't get all the tanks even in that small area, this will be in an area over a hunded times that in size.

The problem also is that although we (the West) will will defiantely have more advanced weapons in the future, the current trend which I find disturbing, is that Russia has thrown all their eggs into developing missle technology. Since they coudn't compete in terms of economy on whole spectrumwide basis of arms development, they decided put it all into missiles. Which in the future could mean more effective SAM's. Iran does partner with Russia as far as aquiring the latest conventional missle techonology, thats how they aquired Sunburn.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

The EMP was your last card wasn't it, when I disproved that, you had nothing left so you try to razmatazz me with this garbage.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/nte41226.htm

When all else fails, you return to acting like a child. So do many people. It is not your fault.

Your EMP argument is a joke. I decided to stop entertaining your delusional (and quite frankly absurd) argumentation. I instead tried to show you a major problem concerning how you understand the data. The problem with your "history forecasts the future" idea, is that only the uneducated (read: stupid) do so with your rigidity. Go ahead. Try it. No matter how hard you try, you will fail like all the rest.

You pointed out that Germany trades with certain countries. So what. That is normal. They buy German cars and sometimes even certain weapons systems. Germany still manufactures them...and lots and lots. The Islamic world does not. I did not want to deal with your Iraq argument (ie. that they developed a large army) because your argumentation is stupid. Not only did Iraq not have the infrastructure to develop and build their own weapons, but they only bought junk from the West and were wiped out when push came to shove. I am sorry, but the American-British obliteration of Iraq only demonstrates western power.

Again, it does not matter what the Islamic world buys. They represent no threat. If they do decide to attack, so what. Our satellites will see the troops massing for an attack. If the Muslim world uses an EMP (THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN WORK), so what. According to NATO doctrine, this would represent an immediate act of war. Europe would respond with all of the EMP-hardened tanks, aircraft and missles at its disposal. If that failed, military doctrine dictates that thousands of tons of VX nerve gas or even tactical nuclear weapons be dumped on both the advancing troops and all supply centres including the home territories. The 10 arabs mutants that survived would hardly constitute a threat.

If you think that Turkish insurrections in Germany will neutralize the Bundeswehr, you are living in fantasy land. The Turks are members of NATO and want a place in the European Union. I know too many Turkish doctors and general scientists who are invariably married to Germans. They do not give a rat's ass for Islam and want to live in freedom. The only thing that they would do is fight for Germany. Even if they all changed their minds and bought guns, there are enough bizarre militia freaks in this country to deal with them. Yes, even the Germans have bizarre "minutemen" loonies.

Enough of my being nice. Your argument is not based on fact. It is based on myths. These myths --and especially your argumentative style -- demonstrate that your logical faculties border on the idiotic. They are dependent on what you WANT to see happen and you twist all facts to fit your theory. All of your detractors have already pointed out that (1) the Europeans have large armies, (2) the equipment is all EMP-hardened, (3) that the indigenous populations would deal with any domestic insurrection, (4) the Islamic world has no real industry, (5) and that we are not dependent on Islamic oil. You must be a Christian fundamentalist.

My recommendation: In 20 years, when nothing happens, just follow the typical example of the Christian "freakshows" and add another 20 years to your argument. I will be waiting and laughing. (See, I just forecast the future)

 

[Damien435]

(1) the Europeans have large armies

The European nations don't have "large" armies, they have powerful armies. If you look at a list of nations by number of active troops the highest Western European nation is Germany at number 18. However if you list nations by military spending you will see two things A.) The US spends more money on their military than the rest of the world combined, and B.) the UK, France, Germany and Italy are all in the top ten for spending.

 

[WNxRogue]

I read your evidence, and I agree with it. If you want to create a marginally powerful EMP over maybe 1500 km, then a one megaton may be ok. If you want to completely anihalate an entire continents power however, you will need something much more powerful. Scientists theorize about 20 megatons.

With the metal, reconstituted metal is only marginally more inexpensive then mined ore, because mining ore is not nearly as expensive as mining oil. Oil is VERY expensive to mine, so you can bet countries will be very quick to switch to a substitute. On a side note, 75% of metal used in the US is reconstituted.

You got nothing left so you resort to cheap accusations, this is typical of someone who has got no argument.

This is exactly what you are doing. When you have no arguments you resort to insults to try to further your point. Im sorry, but this does nothing but make you seem more foolish, so if you please, stick to facts not childish insults.

 

[deerslayer]

The _possible_ but unlikely threat posed by EMP to military systems of the future will probably be rendered moot by advancements in the next 20 years. And who's to say that hardened, more stable civilians systems won't be appearing? Your thesis still leaves much open to debate.

 

[gladius]

When all else fails, you return to acting like a child. So do many people. It is not your fault.

You have no evidence to back yourself up that's why you resort to this don't you? Such pitiful tactics.

Your EMP argument is a joke. I decided to stop entertaining your delusional (and quite frankly absurd) argumentation. I instead tried to show you a major problem concerning how you understand the data. The problem with your "history forecasts the future" idea, is that only the uneducated (read: stupid) do so with your rigidity. Go ahead. Try it. No matter how hard you try, you will fail like all the rest.

Even more regrettable was the fact that most major military hardware and systems, especially those not considered vital to the conduct of strategic nuclear war, were not hardened against EMP much at all. As a result, at the present time our national profile of vulnerability to EMP attack is highly uneven, with large parts of our military machine and virtually all of the equipment undergirding modern American civilization being utterly EMP vulnerable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm

Looks like the jokes on you when it comes to EMP. HAhHahhaha!

You pointed out that Germany trades with certain countries. So what. That is normal. They buy German cars and sometimes even certain weapons systems. Germany still manufactures them...and lots and lots. The Islamic world does not. I did not want to deal with your Iraq argument (ie. that they developed a large army) because your argumentation is stupid. Not only did Iraq not have the infrastructure to develop and build their own weapons, but they only bought junk from the West and were wiped out when push came to shove. I am sorry, but the American-British obliteration of Iraq only demonstrates western power.

Iraq never used EMP and very few of their soldiers were even motivated. They were static and never on the offensive. Not to mention they only outnumber the Allies 2 to 1.

Again, it does not matter what the Islamic world buys. They represent no threat. If they do decide to attack, so what. Our satellites will see the troops massing for an attack. If the Muslim world uses an EMP (THAT MIGHT NOT EVEN WORK), so what. According to NATO doctrine, this would represent an immediate act of war. Europe would respond with all of the EMP-hardened tanks, aircraft and missles at its disposal. If that failed, military doctrine dictates that thousands of tons of VX nerve gas or even tactical nuclear weapons be dumped on both the advancing troops and all supply centres including the home territories. The 10 arabs mutants that survived would hardly constitute a threat.

Yeah sure the Europeans will gas and nuke their own land, which will affect mostly their own people, ...that makes sense, especialy when they still have a chance to win conventionaly.

If you think that Turkish insurrections in Germany will neutralize the Bundeswehr, you are living in fantasy land. The Turks are members of NATO and want a place in the European Union. I know too many Turkish doctors and general scientists who are invariably married to Germans. They do not give a rat's ass for Islam and want to live in freedom. The only thing that they would do is fight for Germany. Even if they all changed their minds and bought guns, there are enough bizarre militia freaks in this country to deal with them. Yes, even the Germans have bizarre "minutemen" loonies.

I never once said the insurrections in Germany will neutralize the Bundeswehr. But they will be enough to take away resources from the front. But we've been through this before, or have you gotten so mad you forgot.

Enough of my being nice. Your argument is not based on fact. It is based on myths. These myths --and especially your argumentative style -- demonstrate that your logical faculties border on the idiotic. They are dependent on what you WANT to see happen and you twist all facts to fit your theory. All of your detractors have already pointed out that (1) the Europeans have large armies, (2) the equipment is all EMP-hardened, (3) that the indigenous populations would deal with any domestic insurrection, (4) the Islamic world has no real industry, (5) and that we are not dependent on Islamic oil. You must be a Christian fundamentalist.

(1) NO. As Damien435 stated as true . Which proves you don't know what you are talking about.

(2) NO. Already with evidence given. Which proves again you don't know what you are talking about.

(3) Yes, but the damage is done and the war is already underway. This will keep them occupied, instead of taking care of task nescesary to help the military. The communications crash caused by the EMP will take weeks for this to settle.

(4) They don't need one to have a large military, as proven.

(5) Yes, but Eruope still imports a good deal from there. Not to mention the Arabs still sell to China, Japan and India so they will always be making money to buy weapons.

And for a fundamentalist I sure drink alot of beer. Not to mention I've been to Europe and liked it, doesn't mean I can't see they are making stupid policies that will asure their doom.

My recommendation: In 20 years, when nothing happens, just follow the typical example of the Christian "freakshows" and add another 20 years to your argument. I will be waiting and laughing. (See, I just forecast the future)

Good. Forget the argument and lets just make a bet. In 20 years, give or take a few...

If this doesn't happen that's fine and with me. I will actually be happy. So you can laugh all you want, that will be okay with me.

Just becuase I say this will happen, doesn't mean I want it to happen. I actually don't. I simply see the evidence, which I backed up every single time.

But I am right and if this does happen...

Then you will see your your cities get burned, your land invaded, and your loved-ones and friends die all around you.

You may then know the folly of your philosophy. But by then it will be too late.

And when some fanatical Islamic sticks his AK-74 bayonet deep in you belly, and yells "Allah achbar!" to your face while you gurgle out your last, the thought that will run through your mind will be that... "Gladius was right all along."

 

[gladius]

I read your evidence, and I agree with it. If you want to create a marginally powerful EMP over maybe 1500 km, then a one megaton may be ok. If you want to completely anihalate an entire continents power however, you will need something much more powerful. Scientists theorize about 20 megatons.

With the metal, reconstituted metal is only marginally more inexpensive then mined ore, because mining ore is not nearly as expensive as mining oil. Oil is VERY expensive to mine, so you can bet countries will be very quick to switch to a substitute. On a side note, 75% of metal used in the US is reconstituted.

If you agreed with my evidence then why did you say this after I presented it;

Although an EMP is possible if released overhead, it will not be nearly at a magnatude of what you are saying. To create an EMP that will short out communication networks (not lamp posts) across an entire continent, you will need a 20 megaton nuke detonated at 400 km. This attack would not permanantly damage it though, at that altitude the EMP would weaken enough (especially when you hit dense air) that it would knockout devices..........for a few minutes.....maybe an hour. Since I cant remeber the muslims having a 20 megaton nuke. At the same time, a missile going up to 400 km would be easily detected and destroyed by one of our missles.

Here is more evidence just incase you mised it.

For example, if a megaton class weapon were to be detonated 400 kilometers above Omaha, nearly the entire contiguous 48 States would be affected with potentially damaging EMP experience from Boston to Los Angeles, from Chicago to New Orleans.

Dr. WOOD. Convention nuclear weapon, one megaton class would impose field strengths of at least 10 kilovolts all over the continental United States. The actual field strengths would be more in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 50,000 volts per meter, not 10.

Dr. WOOD. Ten kilovolts per meter is where you begin to see substantial damage in all kinds of unprotected semiconductor systems, sir, both civilian and military. This is not to say that you won't see it at much lower field strengths, but I don't know of any major military system that has ever been tested unhardened that hasn't suffered widespread damage at 10 kilovolts per meter of EMP equivalent.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm

One Megaton. Nuff said.

This why I called you an idiot, becuase you insisted on something regardless of evidence I had already shown. Not to mention what I also said about the range of THAAD being only around 150km.

And oil is not expensive to mine, neither is soda from the fountain which cost only about a dime a glass, but we willingly pay around $1.50 for. OPEC regulates the flow according to demand and oil companies pump up the prices for profit, that is why it is expensive. But you since this may be hard for you to understand, I will not go any further.

This is exactly what you are doing. When you have no arguments you resort to insults to try to further your point. Im sorry, but this does nothing but make you seem more foolish, so if you please, stick to facts not childish insults.

I did present the facts you refused to listen.

I had arguments, I showed hard evidence and you still refused to listen, and made up your own facts, based on your own imagination. That makes what i said about you correct. As proven above.

It wasn't like I insulted you out of nowhere, becuase I no facts to present. The facts where there and clear, thats why I am right in my statement. If I had make those comment about you based on nothing on my part, then you would be right in your last statement, but that's not the case.

The _possible_ but unlikely threat posed by EMP to military systems of the future will probably be rendered moot by advancements in the next 20 years. And who's to say that hardened, more stable civilians systems won't be appearing? Your thesis still leaves much open to debate.

Maybe much open to debate, nonetheless very possible and likely.

Most experts say that you can never harden everything. The cost to basic civillian goods will make EMP hardening impractical, if your so smart you should know that.

But lets just say if we do go into a program of EMP hardening for the future. And we will if...

If we take the EMP threat seriuosly.


The question is; do we?

Do you?


If we are scared enough of EMP that it makes us take action.

Are we?

Are you?


The fact you don't even take threat of EMP seriously from what you've posted, already shows the mindset that we don't take this seriously to take the nesacery action, to harden the things you say.

 

[WNxRogue]

If you agreed with my evidence then why did you say this after I presented it;

I did, I stated above that to create a marginal EMP it would have to be bigger.

Here is more evidence just incase you mised it.

For example, if a megaton class weapon were to be detonated 400 kilometers above Omaha, nearly the entire contiguous 48 States would be affected with potentially damaging EMP experience from Boston to Los Angeles, from Chicago to New Orleans.

Dr. WOOD. Convention nuclear weapon, one megaton class would impose field strengths of at least 10 kilovolts all over the continental United States. The actual field strengths would be more in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 50,000 volts per meter, not 10.

Dr. WOOD. Ten kilovolts per meter is where you begin to see substantial damage in all kinds of unprotected semiconductor systems, sir, both civilian and military. This is not to say that you won't see it at much lower field strengths, but I don't know of any major military system that has ever been tested unhardened that hasn't suffered widespread damage at 10 kilovolts per meter of EMP equivalent.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm

One Megaton. Nuff said.

This why I called you an idiot, becuase you insisted on something regardless of evidence I had already shown. Not to mention what I also said about the range of THAAD being only around 150km.

Your own meantion of the starfish experiment prove you wrong. That was a 1.4 megaton thermonuclear warhead detonated 400 km up, and it created a 1500 radius of middle destruction. As for THAAD you are wrong, it has a maximum altitude of 150 km, but a maximum range of 125 km. Now, even with this deceptively low range if you put say.....20 launchers on an island in the meditteranian (now of course we have hundreds of these, so you can put many many more) you will have a decent defense with coupled with other defense initiatives.

And oil is not expensive to mine, neither is soda from the fountain which cost only about a dime a glass, but we willingly pay around $1.50 for. OPEC regulates the flow according to demand and oil companies pump up the prices for profit, that is why it is expensive. But you since this may be hard for you to understand, I will not go any further.

That is of course true, but you also have to have a base price. Your own argument proves you wrong. If I mine it for say....$50 a barrel, then the company that mines it tags on a $20 increase. Then the oil is purchased by opec and they tag....$30 for the barrel. Then, the american company refines it, and tags on an extra amount for profit. Here is the supply for a lab: They produce the gasoline and it goes to the pump. Thats it, no middle man, no refining needed no nothing. This will always be cheaper because you are eliminating middle men, and the expensive purification process.

I did present the facts you refused to listen.

I had arguments, I showed hard evidence and you still refused to listen, and made up your own facts, based on your own imagination. That makes what i said about you correct. As proven above.

It wasn't like I insulted you out of nowhere, becuase I no facts to present. The facts where there and clear, thats why I am right in my statement. If I had make those comment about you based on nothing on my part, then you would be right in your last statement, but that's not the case.

You showed evidence, but every single time I or anyone else proved you incorrect, you would just call us fools and repost the same proof again. That means that you were able to find a limited amount of proof that could even hint you are right, and are forced to stick witht that. So please, if you are going to comeback to this argument bring new facts, not that same website over and over and over (like your EMP proof)

Most experts say that you can never harden everything. The cost to basic civillian goods will make EMP hardening impractical, if your so smart you should know that.

But lets just say if we do go into a program of EMP hardening for the future. And we will if...

If we take the EMP threat seriuosly.


The question is; do we?

Do you?


If we are scared enough of EMP that it makes us take action.

Are we?

Are you?


The fact you don't even take threat of EMP seriously from what you've posted, already shows the mindset that we don't take this seriously to take the nesacery action, to harden the things you say.

If you wrap communitcations in foil, that will effectively harden it. So frankly, its not all that expensive. As for the other reason, more and companies are hardening atleast their records, because of 9/11 and other reasons. If this increases in the future, you could see a die out of EMP as a possible weapon.

Your right, I dont see EMP as a possible threat. I see its limitations in this scenario, and the countries its fighting's strengths, and i can recognize that the EMP will not work.

 

[Ollie Garchy]

(1) You have no evidence to back yourself up that's why you resort to this don't you? Such pitiful tactics.

(2) Yes, but Eruope still imports a good deal from there. Not to mention the Arabs still sell to China, Japan and India so they will always be making money to buy weapons.

(3) And when some fanatical Islamic sticks his AK-74 bayonet deep in you belly, and yells "Allah achbar!" to your face while you gurgle out your last, the thought that will run through your mind will be that... "Gladius was right all along."

One of the problems with these posts is related to structure. Too many points get raised and are lost. I will cut this one down in size. This does not mean that I reject or accept issues that I decide to avoid. We all have limited time.

Quick response:

(1) I have rejected the EMP as a threat. You have not. Fine. The problem deals with your argument. You argue that the civilian economy (ie. industry) is unimportant for warmaking purposes. If this is true, and I will address this point in a moment, then who cares about EMP. Why is the European military in serious difficulties if the lights go out? Do not give your standard answers. Believe me, the Europeans have done contingency planning since the 1960s. The troops are trained for EMP. The civilian economy can be repaired. Even Germany, battered by years of strategic bombing, regained its place as primary European industrial power by 1950. So, who cares. [I tried to show you how a way of thinking can distort analysis of "facts". I overestimated your intellectual abilities. Sorry. I will stick to your simplistic "factual" approach.]

(2) In order to buy weapons, you need a seller. All of the world's highly industrialized nations horde their best military technology and have instituted a series of agreements controlling the proliferation of certain weapons. (see Wassenar, etc.) Third World countries do not have either the money or the legal ability to purchase fantastic quantities of the best and most modern weapons. Think about the "Eurofighter" for example. When the Europeans build a few hundred for themselves, they only sell a small number to other countries outside of NATO. According to the proposals, only 72 of 638 will go to an Arab country. All weapons (other than surplus junk) follow this format. The Islamic forces, under these conditions, are horribly outnumbered. In fact, the European producers would probably like to sell a lot more. Why? The profit feeds new investments and even better weapons. This is an armaments dynamic.

(3) The arab who tries to stick a bayonet in my belly? Sorry buddy, the Arabs like detonating themselves. That is what everyone is afraid of. In any case, I think that the US has more to fear than Germany. We have not experienced anything like 9/11. You guys are the ones under siege. Unlike you, I think the US will win the war on terror. The end of Islamic fundamentalism is in everyone's interests...and sort of destructive concerning your theory. According to you, the United States will lose the war. I think not.

Here are a few points of importance:

(1) Israel & Turkey:The Israeli and Turkish armies are just plain huge and constitute two of the largest military forces of the Middle East. Both states are Euro-friendly. In the case of Turkey, a case might be made that the country could face a fundamentalist revolution. In the case of Israel, we have another problem. It is clear that the Arab world would have to neutralize Israel prior to an invasion of Europe. Why? Because Israel represents a major transit route and they control the eastern Mediterranean. At current rates of development and growth, I see no ability for the Islamic world to "deal" with Israel. And, the Israelis are watching the Islamic world...very intensely. [If you think that the Israelis will just watch as Europe is attacked, think about this: the Israelis are currently binding their defence industry to Europe as part of their overall strategy].

(2) Military size is meaningless - quality counts: Even with an army of millions, China is considered a second-rate power. In order for the Arab world to surpass European military power, basically impossible, they would have to spend gigantic sums of money on infrastructure. Not even China is capable of this. Why? Because you need all of the civilian elements of industry to build an army...food reserves, hospitals, repair facilities, training bases, airfields, docks, steel manufacturing, etc. Your argument that the Islamic world will only buy the weapons is like arguing that money grows on trees. It is because of homemade weapons that Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East. If you look at the Islamic military statistics, they are in any case rather small. Add technological inferiority to the equation, and you have a severe problem on your hands.

(3) Europe is getter stronger - not weaker: The Israeli argument. In any case, the total value of German EXPORTS alone is about half of the entire GNP of the Middle East...now, that's money. (This includes Israel and Turkey). Add the UK and France (plus all the others) and the imbalance is staggering. The Middle East cannot change the imbalance without investment in the civilian infrastructure. This means that Europe can outbuy the Middle East and not just outproduce them. Europe is also expanding. By 2020, it is possible to envision the entry of Russia, Turkey and Israel into the EU.

(4) The Middle East is getting poorer: The population is increasing. Economic development is lagging far behind. The economic and political costs of this development are staggering: "Large population growth rates generate tremendous stresses on the states' resources as these people need access to clean water, food, medicine, education, and so on". The best growth rates for the period in question only hit around 3-5%. At that rate, it will take several tens of thousands of years to overtake Europe.

(5) Iraq lost because of a revolution in warfare: Iraq did not lose because they sat back and did nothing. Or because they only outnumbered the Americans 2:1. Iraq lost because they were in fact outnumbered and western military development had entered a new phase based on highly sophisticated weapons. There are no reasons to argue that the Islamic world will either outnumber European troops or have better technology. Again, without an indigenous infrastructure at least comparable with Europe, which is impossible, they cannot design or manufacture the necessary equipment.

(6) The Chinese Example: According to Congress, the Chinese are following a dangerous path: "Continued economic growth and reform are essential to PLA modernization. In absolute terms, this translates into increased funding available for defense. Broad-based growth and modernization also expands China’s economic capacities in industry, technology, and human resources, enabling its leaders to accelerate military modernization in relative terms, as well". Your argument that the Islamic world can build a huge army without civilian industrial development is absurd. No military thinker of any repute (unless he is stoned) will agree with you. The whole issue of a dangerous China is the coupling of industrial development with military issues.

I am getting tired, so here is a synopsis: Since the Islamic world cannot raise a larger or more effective army than Europe, it needs EMPs and guerillas to destroy the state from within and neutralize the army. Both of these factors are highly questionable. An EMP will not work. Nor will an insurrection. That leaves an Islamic army against a far superior European army. They will lose.

[By the way, all of the calculations in this thread concerning naval combat in the Med. and possible avenues of Islamic attack are so stupid that they boggle the mind. You state that the Europeans will not employ strategic bombing against the Middle-East because they will not bomb European soil. First of all, all previous wars demonstrated that Europeans love bombing themselves. Secondly, strategic bombing means hitting supply lines, depots, and ships. The conventional bombs, chemical weapons, and even nukes would fall on Africa and Asia. An attack on Spain or through the Balkans or via the Med. is impossible. Such an attack would take years of preparations, billions in new transportation equipment and infrastructure, and would be impossible to conceal. You cannot just put an army somewhere...real life is different from fantasy.]

[My sources were cut off when I copied the post. Is there a way to turn off the automatic logout?]

 

[achinese]

Ollie Garchy , Is that you? How many time i have to remind you

 

[Damien435]

(3) The arab who tries to stick a bayonet in my belly? Sorry buddy, the Arabs like detonating themselves. That is what everyone is afraid of. In any case, I think that the US has more to fear than Germany. We have not experienced anything like 9/11. You guys are the ones under siege. Unlike you, I think the US will win the war on terror. The end of Islamic fundamentalism is in everyone's interests...and sort of destructive concerning your theory. According to you, the United States will lose the war. I think not.

I also agree that the United States will win the War on Terror, but what is a victory in this war? If the United States "loses" (give up and pull out or are forced out of the Middle East) and decades later the whole of the Islamic world is united under one government that believes in cooperation with one peers would it not be an American victory too? If the War on Terror proves so devastating to the Arabs that they finally start policing themselves and taking down Al Qaeda themselves, with or without the US, that would also be a victory for the US, right? This is just such a complicated situation this war is. It's a war that doesn't have a clear enemy without a clear set of guidelines without a clear set of victory conditions, this truly is unlike any war we have ever fought. I don't think this war will be won in Afghanistan or Iraq, in fact I don't think this is a war that can be won by mass numbers of troops, I think this is a war that should be fought by special forces, Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all working together, attacking targets of opportunity inside the territory of our enemies and allies alike. Small, fast, mobile forces that can go in, destroy a specific target and then be removed before anyone knows what's going on. We could fight a war like this seemingly forever with a much smaller commitment of troops and money. In other words we are giong about this all wrong, IMO. Of course this war is as much about hearts and minds as it is about actual battles and victories. The media is not doing it's part, this is a war, much like Vietnam, where their reporting has a very deep impact in the perception of how the war is being fought and won. I think far too often the news media decides before looking at the facts the outcome of a battle, CNN, CBS and NBC are all way too quick to condemn the President and FOX is way to quick to jump in the President's fan club.

So to re-iterate my point, I agree that the US will be victorious, I just don't see how and it is probably my heart, not my mind, that feels my nation will be victorious.

 

[zander_0633]

Well, The Muslim states could cut off the oil from thw world and the rest of the world will face a oil shortage. With that, the US will be forced to use their own oil reserve and finance the world with it. If the Europenas are to be attacked at this time, the Middle eastern could have the element of first strike! The Europeans could hold off, sure no doubt about it. But soon, the US will strike and bring in troops from Afganistan, Iraq, India. This would cause the Middle eastern countires to protect their home land. I believe that the muslim states can only succeed if they are totally united. But the problem is that they have internal strife now, fighting amongst themselve and of diffrent factions!

 

[Ollie Garchy]

As for the war on terror: do not worry, guys. The war on terror (and the isolation of the rogue states) is precisely the reason why the Middle East is declining. The current guerilla war in Iraq represents a real war...and one that is being treated as a real conflict with real losses (see below). This means extensive damage to the Middle East in terms of trade, battle damage and loss of life. The Islamic fundamentalists are, for example, recruited and sent to Iraq...where they die.

The economic costs to the United States are minimal: "given the overall size of the US economy, and the levels of defense spending maintained during the cold war, it is well within the bounds of recent experience, according to Center for Strategic and International Studies military expert Anthony Cordesman. Total defense spending in 2006 will probably be around 4 percent of gross national product, notes Mr. Cordesman. The average since 1992 for this measure has been 3.6 percent." [The war in Iraq is costing about 10-20% of the military and not overall budget] Many journalists and pacifists disagree, but they disagree with the entire war on terror, anyway.

In order to build a vast army capable of defeating the combined armies of Europe, the Islamic world would have to (1) recover from the American invasions, (2) kick the United States out permanently (ie. a war against the US), (3) destroy Israel, etc. They first have to unite and defeat the United States in Iraq. That, even if possible, will take time. The Islamic world will need even more time to rebuild. The 20-year idea looks more and more impossible.

In any case, the United States cannot and will not just leave the Middle East. An entirely new philosophy built on anti-globalism and isolationism would have to develop...and this would be totally against modern American developments. Giving up Israel, for example, is not something that will happen very easily. The US will fight it out in Iraq. Americans should be advised: a pullout with mean a blowback. Islam is currently anti-American.

http://www.export.gov/Iraq/pdf/crs_iraq_economy.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0519/p01s03-usmi.html
http://www.comw.org/warreport/fulltext/0605cordesman.pdf
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2035.shtml
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/Cost_of_War_in_Iraq.pdf
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0302editr.htm

 

[zander_0633]

Nice analysis!

 

[Damien435]

(3) destroy Israel, etc.

I disagree, I think the Arabs and Israeli's need to put aside their differences and unite, it's in all of their best interests, Israel has nukes and the house to house fighting could destroy Jerusalem, I also wouldn't be surprised if the Dome of the Rock was "accidently" destroyed by say a misplaced bomb dropped from the air.

 

[zander_0633]

Well, the Jews never liked the Muslims!

 

[gladius]

One of the problems with these posts is related to structure. Too many points get raised and are lost. I will cut this one down in size. This does not mean that I reject or accept issues that I decide to avoid. We all have limited time.

Quick response:

(1) I have rejected the EMP as a threat. You have not.

Becuase it totally defeats your argument and you have nothing to say.

Because you refuse to face reality, when you have lost.

So if its true and it doesn't fit your agenda, you regect it. I see now.

All my arguments are backed up by evidence. Again;

Even more regrettable was the fact that most major military hardware and systems, especially those not considered vital to the conduct of strategic nuclear war, were not hardened against EMP much at all. As a result, at the present time our national profile of vulnerability to EMP attack is highly uneven, with large parts of our military machine and virtually all of the equipment undergirding modern American civilization being utterly EMP vulnerable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm

Whose side should people take, your oppinion, or the oppinion of a top scientist. See how foolish you're beginning to be.

The fact that you refuse hard evidence is already testament to the fact that your arguments are useless based on meaningless of oppinion all your own.

Until you can face the facts of this then there is nothing more to discuss since it is all your oppinion without any backing wathsoever.

In fact you admited this

The EMP does endanger the CIVILIAN economic system. There is no doubt about that.

What are you going to do? Backtrack now that I have poven you wrong.

Fine. The problem deals with your argument. You argue that the civilian economy (ie. industry) is unimportant for warmaking purposes.

When did I say this?!?!?! HAhahaha.

Another moronic statement. I've always pointed out civilian economy is vital to the continued war effort, thats why EMP comes into play.

I even pointed out in a past post, that even if the tanks and planes survive EMP alot of the facilities and transports will be down and not be able to supply them with vital ammo and fuel.

Not only do you refuse top scientific testimony, but don't even read why I had posted and you say the opposite, because no more arguement againts the facts.

Its so sad you have to resort to lies and distortion in you arguement. You must be losing and have nothing more evident to say.

Again let me remind you...

The EMP does endanger the CIVILIAN economic system. There is no doubt about that.

See how moronic you are?!

The end of Islamic fundamentalism is in everyone's interests...and sort of destructive concerning your theory. According to you, the United States will lose the war. I think not.

When did I say this?!?!

More moronic statements. I never said the US will lose the war on terror. I think we have a good chance of winning, and this will buy us time. Just because you win the war on terror, doesn't mean you changes peoples long term beliefs, namely Islamic fundamentalism.

You are getting desperate and grabbing for anything aren't you?

Why is the European military in serious difficulties if the lights go out? Do not give your standard answers. Believe me, the Europeans have done contingency planning since the 1960s. The troops are trained for EMP. The civilian economy can be repaired. Even Germany, battered by years of strategic bombing, regained its place as primary European industrial power by 1950. So, who cares. [I tried to show you how a way of thinking can distort analysis of "facts". I overestimated your intellectual abilities. Sorry. I will stick to your simplistic "factual" approach.]

(2) In order to buy weapons, you need a seller. All of the world's highly industrialized nations horde their best military technology and have instituted a series of agreements controlling the proliferation of certain weapons. (see Wassenar, etc.) Third World countries do not have either the money or the legal ability to purchase fantastic quantities of the best and most modern weapons. Think about the "Eurofighter" for example. When the Europeans build a few hundred for themselves, they only sell a small number to other countries outside of NATO. According to the proposals, only 72 of 638 will go to an Arab country. All weapons (other than surplus junk) follow this format. The Islamic forces, under these conditions, are horribly outnumbered. In fact, the European producers would probably like to sell a lot more. Why? The profit feeds new investments and even better weapons. This is an armaments dynamic.

(3) The arab who tries to stick a bayonet in my belly? Sorry buddy, the Arabs like detonating themselves. That is what everyone is afraid of. In any case, I think that the US has more to fear than Germany. We have not experienced anything like 9/11. You guys are the ones under siege. Unlike you, I think the US will win the war on terror. The end of Islamic fundamentalism is in everyone's interests...and sort of destructive concerning your theory. According to you, the United States will lose the war. I think not.

Here are a few points of importance:

(1) Israel & Turkey:The Israeli and Turkish armies are just plain huge and constitute two of the largest military forces of the Middle East. Both states are Euro-friendly. In the case of Turkey, a case might be made that the country could face a fundamentalist revolution. In the case of Israel, we have another problem. It is clear that the Arab world would have to neutralize Israel prior to an invasion of Europe. Why? Because Israel represents a major transit route and they control the eastern Mediterranean. At current rates of development and growth, I see no ability for the Islamic world to "deal" with Israel. And, the Israelis are watching the Islamic world...very intensely. [If you think that the Israelis will just watch as Europe is attacked, think about this: the Israelis are currently binding their defence industry to Europe as part of their overall strategy].

(2) Military size is meaningless - quality counts: Even with an army of millions, China is considered a second-rate power. In order for the Arab world to surpass European military power, basically impossible, they would have to spend gigantic sums of money on infrastructure. Not even China is capable of this. Why? Because you need all of the civilian elements of industry to build an army...food reserves, hospitals, repair facilities, training bases, airfields, docks, steel manufacturing, etc. Your argument that the Islamic world will only buy the weapons is like arguing that money grows on trees. It is because of homemade weapons that Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East. If you look at the Islamic military statistics, they are in any case rather small. Add technological inferiority to the equation, and you have a severe problem on your hands.

(3) Europe is getter stronger - not weaker: The Israeli argument. In any case, the total value of German EXPORTS alone is about half of the entire GNP of the Middle East...now, that's money. (This includes Israel and Turkey). Add the UK and France (plus all the others) and the imbalance is staggering. The Middle East cannot change the imbalance without investment in the civilian infrastructure. This means that Europe can outbuy the Middle East and not just outproduce them. Europe is also expanding. By 2020, it is possible to envision the entry of Russia, Turkey and Israel into the EU...........

[post too long]


Garbage.

Unitil you are willing to take into account scientific accounts than we have nothing to discuss.

Because if I do bring up evidence or make an accurate statement, you will simply ignore them for your own oppinion, becuase you can't stand being wrong.

You have regected those accounts because they totally defeat you don't they!

So you try distraction tactics to sidestep the issue, typical of someone who no longer has any argument.

I will keep bringing the same statements up again and again.

Even more regrettable was the fact that most major military hardware and systems, especially those not considered vital to the conduct of strategic nuclear war, were not hardened against EMP much at all. As a result, at the present time our national profile of vulnerability to EMP attack is highly uneven, with large parts of our military machine and virtually all of the equipment undergirding modern American civilization being utterly EMP vulnerable.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/congress/1997_h/has197010_1.htm

You have nothing to say.

I stick with the facts and no razmatazz.



The bet still stands in 20 years, if this doesn't happen, you can laugh.

If it does, then you will see your cities burning around you and the people you know dying. Like I said when some fanatical Muslim sticks his bayonet deep in your belly, you will know you heard it here first.

 

[gladius]

Your own meantion of the starfish experiment prove you wrong. That was a 1.4 megaton thermonuclear warhead detonated 400 km up, and it created a 1500 radius of middle destruction.

This is laughable. 1 megaton or 1.4 megaton, whats the difference, its alot less than the 20 megatons you were saying. Its still proves the range of a one megatone warhead which will be somewhere close. ...Besides the nations top scientist said one megaton, not me. One megaton will do significant damage.

As for THAAD you are wrong, it has a maximum altitude of 150 km, but a maximum range of 125 km. Now, even with this deceptively low range if you put say.....20 launchers on an island in the meditteranian (now of course we have hundreds of these, so you can put many many more) you will have a decent defense with coupled with other defense initiatives.

Hhhahahhaha.

You know how silly this is right?

If the range is 150km alt and 125km distance, if the missle is launched 600 km away and detonates at 400 km, how is THAAD going to hit it. No matter how many you have it still not going to hit it.

This is what I was saying about you not making any sense. I'm not even going to waste my time at the rest of your statements they are just as silly.