Does suffering more casualties SOUND like a bad thing?

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

larry, can you please not derail the thread in your usual fashion? just this once? pretty please?

He asked you who you were calling pacifist, which you didn't answer.

The assumption is that you are calling Obama pacifist since every complaint you ever make on the forum is about Obama, however that doesn't make sense since he increased troop presence in afghanistan by 34,000 troops in 2010, and at the same time is pushing a real exit strategy for once.
Obviously, he clearly wants to get the job done, and get us out, and I don't see how anyone can object with his strategy of doing that.

So your complaint can't be about Obama, unless you don't know this fact, which is also possible.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

Look for the muzzle flash.

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

Now that's funny right there. +1

I doubt that either of us will be consulted.
Are you THAT ignorant of the extent of atmospheric testing that occurred in the US and globally before the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty? Or are you just playing word games? Here, let me help you.

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

I guess you don't understand the concept of nuclear winter. One or two tests per year over a 20 plus year period will not create a nuclear winter.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

IIRC, during that time we were not talking about 1 or 2 tests a year. There were dozens of extremely high yield --100 megaton-- air bursts every year by both the Soviets and the US.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Air bursts are relatively clean. The only practical purpose of an air burst is knocking a fleet of bombers, or an ATBM out of the air. At least that's what they told us when we were training as Repairman for Missile and Nuclear Warheads.

An airburst would have to be at relatively low altitude, such as the ones over Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be dirty. I think those were at something like 1,600 feet.

__________________
2001 SLK 320 six speed manual
2014 Porsche Cayenne six speed manual

Annoy a Liberal, Read the Constitution

Guess again. I know what you mean; and I'm certainly not asking for one. I guess you on the other hand don't understand how easy it is to click a link. Here's a list of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. All of the tests listed below occurred in Nevada, except the Trinity test which occurred near Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Test Series Year Location Number of Tests

• Project Trinity 1945 U.S.A. 1
• Operation Ranger 1951 U.S.A. 5
• Operation Buster-Jangle 1951 U.S.A. 7
• Op Tumbler-Snapper 1952 U.S.A. 8
• Op Upshot-Knothole 1953 U.S.A. 11
• Operation Teapot 1955 U.S.A. 14
• Operation Plumbbob 1957 U.S.A. 24
• Operation Hardtack II 1958 U.S.A. 19
• Operation Dominic II 1962 U.S.A. 4
• Plowshare Progr 1961-1962 U.S.A. 27 **

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

whats the argument here, that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan wouldn't affect most of the rest of the world, and therefore we shouldn't spend too much time considering it as a possibility?

Im not understanding the disagreement. The US tested 1000 bombs or just over than number during its testing phase between the 40s and the 90s, a large number of which were fission bombs, not thermonuclear fusion bombs.

Wiki article says estimates show India at having 75-100 nuclear weapons, but-

As of 1999, India was estimated to have 4200 kg of separated reactor-grade plutonium from its power reactors, which is equivalent to roughly 1000 nuclear weapons.[5][6] India is not a signatory to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India argues entrenches the status quo of the existing nuclear weapons states whilst preventing general nuclear disarmament

source- India and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That was 10 years ago too, who knows just how many they have now, especially if they aren't part of the treaty process?

as far as Pakistan, who knows what they have?

But-
In late 2006, the Institute for Science and International Security released intelligence reports and imagery showing the construction of a new plutonium reactor at the Khushab nuclear site. The reactor is deemed to be large enough to produce enough plutonium to facilitate the creation of as many as "40 to 50 nuclear weapons a year."[56][57][58] The New York Times carried the story with the insight that this would be Pakistan's third plutonium reactor,[59] signaling a shift to dual-stream development, with Plutonium-based devices supplementing the nation's existing HEU stream to atomic warheads.

source- Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Yeah, there were plenty of weapons tested by the US, USSR, UK, France, ect, but no one really knows what a nuclear exchange on a major scale would bring about climatically. These two countries could have 1000s of weapons, we know that 1000s weapons set off over 50 years and half underground has limited effects internationally (debatable if you look at the damage to places like Bikini Atoll and leukemia in the southwest), but what would happen if that many are set off over a matter of minutes?

Also prevailing winds in that region would bring the fallout over the middle east and africa.

I think its something worth considering at least.

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

The source listed by the person disagreeing did not look as if it indicated that.

In any case the fear is that if Pakistan and India start trading nukes it might draw in other nuclear powers.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

I posted an abbreviated list of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests which occurred within the borders of the continental US. The list did not include tests conducted in the Pacific, or the Atlantic. Nor did it include tests conducted by other nations. Nor did it include underground tests. It does indeed indicate that your estimate of the extent of weapons testing done in the stated time and place was low. I expect that anyone with the ability to add sums and do long division to also agree that there were more than "1 or 2 per year"
Which other nuclear armed states do you propose are itching for a brawl? I've listed them for your convenience; because I know how you hate to click a link or do any research yourself. US, UK, France, Russia, Israel, North Korea, China

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

I think it used to be "If the purpose of the war was to get Osama and since they got him already, shouldn't the war be over?" To which I should have merely answered "Yes, it should be over, except we've been lied to, so it isn't."
Of course I do not believe that nuclear war is a trivial matter.

But with respect to (what I infer to be) t walgamuth's hypothesis that India / Pakistan relations are our gov't's reason / justification for continued military presence in Afghanistan; and that both countries are ready to annihilate each other any minute now.

I have to say that I think both of those are unlikely; and that I've seen no information to support either notion.

__________________
Remember, Safety Third!
'99 E300 Turbodiesel, '82 300TD, 1996 12V Cummins Turbo, '94 Neoplan - Detroit 6V92TA

I don't think they are ready to annihilate each other either, the death toll from such an exchange is self evident to them as it is to us, however I can see an argument for the nation of Afghanistan suddenly becoming a far richer prize since the greater exploration of their mining potential in recent years.

Now its less of a mountainous country full of armed, dangerous people, and more of a mountainous country full of armed, dangerous people sitting on untold treasure to be exploited.

That difference in perception might be the difference in any kind of move towards conquest by any of the bordering nations, and subsequent widening of any conflict, which involves those two nuclear powers.

I could see India not being happy at the prospect of Pakistan adding a huge chunk of Afghanistan to its borders, ect

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.

India is having a problem with power right now. On the bright side, it saves energy. What a wonderful example for the rest of us.

Exactly. Massive population, Issues providing for it, continual and endless shortages as demand increases. Not just for power, for water, other services ect.

This is the type of situation where wars can be easily bred.

A lot of angry people, all it takes is for someone or something to direct anger. Plenty of examples from the past showing how straight forward that can be

__________________
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.