Originally Posted by gladius

(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?]

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

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(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.

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!

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/fullte...5cordesman.pdf
http://electroniciraq.net/news/2035.shtml
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty...ar_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

Nice analysis!

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

(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.

Well, the Jews never liked the Muslims!

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

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/li...as197010_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

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

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...

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

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/li...as197010_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.

Originally Posted by WNxRogue

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.