The rising of an Empire and the future invasion of Europe! - Page 65




 
--
 
May 12th, 2006  
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.
May 14th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.



Quote:
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.


May 14th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxRogue
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
--
May 14th, 2006  
Ollie Garchy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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)
May 14th, 2006  
Damien435
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
(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.
May 14th, 2006  
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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.
May 15th, 2006  
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.
May 15th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy
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.

Quote:
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/li...as197010_1.htm

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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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."
May 15th, 2006  
gladius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
If you agreed with my evidence then why did you say this after I presented it;

Quote:
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/li...as197010_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.

Quote:
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.






Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
May 15th, 2006  
WNxRogue
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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/li...as197010_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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gladius
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.