Should communism have NOT died so that the US could have remained the global leader?

I believe that the future global economic leaders, and therefore probably also leaders militarily, will be China and India. Populace nations that although not entirely free, are trending in the right direction. It's inevitable.

So I would posit that the death of communism also has meant the death of US global leadership.

Last time I checked, China was still a communist country exhibiting state capitalism. more than 50% of the country's population still practices agriculture, and profits are kept between very few people and not passed down to the masses. The communist leaders want to keep the general population very poor (and obidient) and recognize the few loyal 'capitalists' who bring $USD and capital into the country.

I wouldn't go forward and say that the US has lost global leadership either. It really only had global leadership for 25 years between the time when the Soviet Union broke up and a few years ago. In the post WW2 era, global leadership was sharply divided between the Soviets and the Americans. I would say it lost its moral authority when it invaded Iraq, and is feeling the effects of it now because America is no longer influencial in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

But this discussion belongs on DT.

Quote: boymimbo

Last time I checked, China was still a communist country exhibiting state capitalism. more than 50% of the country's population still practices agriculture, and profits are kept between very few people and not passed down to the masses. The communist leaders want to keep the general population very poor (and obidient) and recognize the few loyal 'capitalists' who bring $USD and capital into the country.

I believe that I did say "the future" and that they are "trending in the right direction".

Quote: boymimbo

I wouldn't go forward and say that the US has lost global leadership either. It really only had global leadership for 25 years between the time when the Soviet Union broke up and a few years ago. In the post WW2 era, global leadership was sharply divided between the Soviets and the Americans. I would say it lost its moral authority when it invaded Iraq, and is feeling the effects of it now because America is no longer influencial in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

It's not yet lost, but it will be. It can't be stopped.......unless we can somehow see communism return to those countries. Maybe the CIA can do something about that...... :-)

The USA has not lost global leadership no matter how much the current POTUS is trying to do it for us.

The USA controls the world's oceans. No other nation in history has done that. Both China and India have limited coastlines that limit they ultimate naval power they can have. Without naval power you cannot project power around the world. The USA can deny any nation that it wants to the ability to operate on the oceans. The USA cannot be approached in a naval sense right now, the only way it might is if India or China gets a base in Central America. OTOH, the USA has bases in Japan, S Korea, and Diego Garcia to approach India and China.

Economically it isn't going to happen soon, either. Without the USA, China has a barely positive balance of trade. The USA is already trying to encourage some of this offshoring to Mexico. China has wealthy coasts but a poor interior. It must keep transferring wealth to the interior to maintain peace. And China is really a potemkin village of an economy. All that junk you buy at Harbor Freight is minimally profitable. They have good cash flow, but it all flows to debt service internally. We have all heard the stories of the beand new ghost towns they are building.

India is nearly the same situation. She is full of klans and castes that hate each other. Lots and lots of poverty. India has a population that will not age like China's as they still are beyond replacement birth levels. But it is already overcrowded. This makes even basic living super expensive for the masses--think as if everyone in the USA had to pay NYC rent rates.

"Miracle" economies then to have a crash or two along the way. I can see one coming over the next 10 years in either or both places.

The USA has not YET lost its global leadership. However, it has been slowly losing it over the past couple of decades and the deterioration will continue. It will not matter who, or which party, governs this nation.

My crystal balls say that in the future, naval power will have little value relative to today. Air power and associated technologies will rule. It will be expensive and the most populace free market countries will be able to fund it. As China and India continue to evolve, they will become exactly that.

The USA will not be the leader. Nor will Russia.

Your title suggests that you think the people who live in Asia and Eastern Europe should have retained their shackles under the backwards system of communism so that the USA would look better by comparison. This is a morally troubling idea. The lives of Russians and Chinese people should not be radically impared just to retain political power in the west.

Quote: AZDuffman

The USA controls the world's oceans. No other nation in history has done that...

I would have to disagree with this statement.

America, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, numerous Caribbean Islands, Malta, South Africa, others. The British Empire ruled the seas, and the world, absolutely for over 100 years, and partially for at least another 100. They won virtually all wars against other strong sea powers during most of that time. "The sun never sets on the Empire" etc.

I would answer as follows. I know the OP said "losing" and not "lost" but even though the US it outgunned numbers wise, you really have to look at the overall socio economic climate of each person and indeed family unit compared on a 1 for 1 basis. Both India and China have catastrophic poverty, especially India due to its crazy over population. China still cowers behind its very unique ruling system that isn't quite communist but it isn't "not" quite communist either.

The US still has some of the best quality of life (comparatively speaking), good middle class (MUCH stronger than both China and India) and strong earnings potential. For both India and China the power rests with a few individuals who control the export markets.

Until both India and China figure out how to improve the quality of life of their people and give them something to work towards and live for, there is no chance that they overtake the US as a true global superpower.

As for who controls the seas.....nobody. The oceans are simply too vast to control as is clearly in evidence with the MH370 mystery. The US I'm sure does have the ability to launch the most nukes from the seas, if that is what you mean?

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would have to disagree with this statement.

I too would disagree with USA control of the oceans. What sort of control do we have? Its like putting a fist into a large pillow. When we remove the fist the pillow springs back. We can send a fleet to stand offshore of a trouble spot, but we can't really do much and those sailors get awfully tired on 24 hour alert status. How much control did that USA destroyer have when it entered Yemen for fuel and was attacked. Japan controls the worlds fisheries and the Japanese navy is going to be a tough nut for the US Navy to crack.

How vulnerable was the Royal Navy during the Falklands War when Exocet autonomous standoff weapons make it One Exocet, One Ship? How powerful were the Scotch Guards when one two Argentinian fighters put all the troops on a troop carrier on Dead or Dying status in less than two minutes? And remember, the "professional" British troops were facing unwilling, untrained conscripts who were poorly clothed, poorly fed and poorly motivated. Yet the Argentinians acquitted themselves quite well.

Quote: beachbumbabs

America, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, numerous Caribbean Islands, Malta, South Africa, others. The British Empire ruled the seas, and the world, absolutely for over 100 years, and partially for at least another 100. They won virtually all wars against other strong sea powers during most of that time. "The sun never sets on the Empire" etc.

Britain was seen as the Bully of the seas and in 1878 the Caltalpa crew including cook and cabin boy lined the rails armed with wooden harpoons and marlinspikes faced down fifty muskets of the Territorial Guard and a recently installed canon appropriated from a parade ground. They pointed to the American flag and stated that they were legally on the High Seas and that the bully boy tactics of the Royal Navy would cost them dearly. So much for the might of the Royal Navy.

By the way, I agree: Belongs at DT.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would have to disagree with this statement.

America, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, numerous Caribbean Islands, Malta, South Africa, others. The British Empire ruled the seas, and the world, absolutely for over 100 years, and partially for at least another 100. They won virtually all wars against other strong sea powers during most of that time. "The sun never sets on the Empire" etc.

Interesting factoid: http://what-if.xkcd.com/48/

Quote: beachbumbabs

I would have to disagree with this statement.

America, Canada, Hong Kong, India, Australia, New Zealand, numerous Caribbean Islands, Malta, South Africa, others. The British Empire ruled the seas, and the world, absolutely for over 100 years, and partially for at least another 100. They won virtually all wars against other strong sea powers during most of that time. "The sun never sets on the Empire" etc.

Quote: FleaStiff

I too would disagree with USA control of the oceans. What sort of control do we have? Its like putting a fist into a large pillow. When we remove the fist the pillow springs back. We can send a fleet to stand offshore of a trouble spot, but we can't really do much and those sailors get awfully tired on 24 hour alert status. How much control did that USA destroyer have when it entered Yemen for fuel and was attacked. Japan controls the worlds fisheries and the Japanese navy is going to be a tough nut for the US Navy to crack.

"Control" does not mean that there will never be an attack on a single ship. But since you brought it up, that was one of the only times an American ship was attacked successfully since WWII.

When the Brits "rules the oceans" what they ruled was the Atlantic and some area around India. When the Falkland Island war happened if the USA told the Brits "NO" the Brits would have had to turn around and go home. When the Brits were controlling the seas as you state they were still paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates in Libya to leave shipping alone. Everyone was until the USMC put an end to that.

The USA has 11 Carrier Groups, each of which on its own is more naval power than most nations possess. Having this many allows at least 1-2 to always be at rest. All hot spots can be patrolled, and they can be shifted at will with all the bases around the world. No nation has had worldwide bases like the US Navy has today, ever. The "navy" of most nations is a glorified coast guard, not a blue-ocean navy as the USA has.

If the Japanese Nave tried to take on the US Navy the former would see their ancestors on the bottom of the sea in short order. Nothing is close to the power the US Navy has, and nothing before comes close. We seem to forget how as close as 1942 other navies could shut off shipping lanes. That would not be possible today.

The MH370 "mystery" notwithstanding....

There is NOT a surface naval ship that is larger than a destroyer that its exact position in not known to the US Navy any time it slips out of port.

Satellites and probably a least two attack subs are tracking it and its escorts all the time. The same with Submarines launched by Russians and/or China.

And any "aircraft carriers" owned by Russia and China could ALL be combined together and still not equal the firepower or airplane contingent on one Nimitz sized US carrier.

Yes, the US "does" control the sea's, wherever and whenever it wants to.

I liked the statement about millions of folks in Eastern Europe living under tyranny of the Soviets. Good to have released ALL of them, at least to a nominally better Putin regime in Russia.

Russia is flexing its muscle in Ukraine, because it can. It would be like the US annexing a portion of Canada or Mexico, what is ANYONE else in the world going to do about it? China in flexing its muscles in the South China Seas, but claiming to "own" islands that are owned by other countries. Many are nothing but rock outcroppings. But there are plenty of strategic and economic reasons to draw your national boundaries as wide as possible...

Having the Soviets for 30 some years gave balance to the super-powers. Because that is what you were stuck with. Its much messier now... But better all the way around.

China and or India *could* in about 40-50 years take a prominent role in the world, much like the USA has carried since the end of the First World War. China could not successfully invade Taiwan at the current time, and could take 20 years to even be able too. Without the ability to project force like that, then really, all they are is the man with pockets behind the guy with the muscle and the cash.

And India? Not gonna happen. We are more likely to see a significant partitioning of India in the next 30 years, rather then India rising to "super-power" status.

SFB

Quote: SFB

Yes, the US "does" control the sea's, wherever and whenever it wants to.


China and or India *could* in about 40-50 years take a prominent role in the world, much like the USA has carried since the end of the First World War. China could not successfully invade Taiwan at the current time, and could take 20 years to even be able too. Without the ability to project force like that, then really, all they are is the man with pockets behind the guy with the muscle and the cash.

And India? Not gonna happen. We are more likely to see a significant partitioning of India in the next 30 years, rather then India rising to "super-power" status.

SFB

What the media and armchair forecasters miss is that while a country can build a navy, buy or build aircraft, and have a large army this does not give them the tactics they need. Lets take aircraft carriers. China is rumored to be building or have launched their first one. But what does this give them? As discussed, one aircraft carrier cannot project force, it will have to be in port for repair at least part of the time. Suppose they send it towards Hawaii or the west coast, the sailors need to be fed. Handling long supply lines like that takes lots of support ships, and you need to have a chain of bases across the Pacific to realistically do it. Even if they can get all of that done, they need to train sailors and aviators and train them really well. The USA has a near 250 year naval tradition. We have run aircraft carriers for 70 years. If a Chinese carrier tried to fight it out with an American one the chances are that the American fighters would be bombing the decks of the Chinese carrier before they could get half the planes launched.

China is currently playing way, way above their real military level.

I can see China and India both partitioned into various regions. India is still less a nation-state with common heritage than a creation of the British Empire for administration. China has united and divided many, many times over the centuries.

Economically, China has to get beyond producing cheap junk and build their own brands and quality. Japan was cheapo stuff in the 1950s but over time Toyota, Sony, and other powerhouse companies emerged. My prediction is China has 10-20 years to make their own Toyota and Sony or else the will lose their labor cost advantage to someone else.

Quote: bigfoot66

Your title suggests that you think the people who live in Asia and Eastern Europe should have retained their shackles under the backwards system of communism so that the USA would look better by comparison. This is a morally troubling idea. The lives of Russians and Chinese people should not be radically impared just to retain political power in the west.

What I was implying is that the USA may have been better off with communism alive in those countries, particularly China, in terms of being able to retain its leadership both economically and militarily. Irrespective of whether those people lives would be impaired.

Controlling the seas was great for conventional wars. Look where we are now.

We cant control our land boarders, and I imagine our economy could be shot to hell if an enemy boat just got within a few miles of manhattan, and set off a nuke. The radioactive fallout would be just as devistating in making the land unuseable. It doesnt have to explode on american soil. Something like that will happen...its just a matter of when.

Obama even answered a question about Russia's aggression and if they are a world power. And Obama said that he is more worried about a nuclear bomb going off in NYC, than Putin's Russia.

I know its more complicated than that and its not an "either or" proposition because although a small terrorist based country may eventually do that deed...its possible they may get the material needed from Russia. In fact if Russia or china ever wanted to nuke us...I can guess that they will do it through a third party.

It was mentioned that we have a great middle class, and are rather prosperous....however we are one dirty bomb away from a severe drop. Like the old saying"the bigger they are...the harder they fall".

In the oold days growing up as a kid in the 60's there was real concern of a nuclear attack from Russia. But there was always the consolation that they would hold back because retaliation would occur and we had bombs that could take out their cities in return

Now military superiority is not as big an issue......since a renagade band of terrorists not particularly associated with a country can cause catsoptropic damage to property, lives and economy. without us having a target to return fire to.

The people of russia, india, china are struggling to various degrees compared tot he USA folks. So if a terrorist wants to cause the most effect of an act...we are the poeple they well look to. We have the biggest buildings, the nicest resteraunts, the most toys to play with as adults......

Surface ships are almost always vulnerable though. A few countries have the tech to build very good anti-ship missiles. Missiles or tech can be sold or transferred to any country on Earth. Look up sunburn and oinks missiles.

Quote: LarryS

Controlling the seas was great for conventional wars. Look where we are now.

We cant control our land boarders, and I imagine our economy could be shot to hell if an enemy boat just got within a few miles of manhattan, and set off a nuke. The radioactive fallout would be just as devistating in making the land unuseable. It doesnt have to explode on american soil. Something like that will happen...its just a matter of when.

It was mentioned that we have a great middle class, and are rather prosperous....however we are one dirty bomb away from a severe drop. Like the old saying"the bigger they are...the harder they fall".

The people of russia, india, china are struggling to various degrees compared tot he USA folks. So if a terrorist wants to cause the most effect of an act...we are the poeple they well look to. We have the biggest buildings, the nicest resteraunts, the most toys to play with as adults......

We could control the land borders if we put our mind to it, we have not done so. Now yes, if an enemy boat got near Manhattan they could set off a nuke. Manhattan isn't even the best place to hit, though. I'd hit New Orleans, LA, or Houston first. But to get a boat that close is no easy feat. To get that close with a nuke is even harder.

Fear not the "dirty bomb" as it is more media hype than a practical weapon. To make one really work you need some heavily radioactive material. When the bomb material is that radioactive it will make the bomb maker and driver sick or dead before they can get it detonated. If they use a lower-dose material then it is not that dangerous. Then there is dispersal. You have to make a bomb that will spread the material but not vaporize it in the explosion. Far easier said than done. Lots of machine work and proper setting of detonations.

What I fear more is the reaction of the scared-of-anything American Public. People are so fast to assume anything that happens is terrorism. People are afraid to accept *any* level of risk. The enemy can win from within.

Quote: AZDuffman

We could control the land borders if we put our mind to it, we have not done so. Now yes, if an enemy boat got near Manhattan they could set off a nuke. Manhattan isn't even the best place to hit, though. I'd hit New Orleans, LA, or Houston first. But to get a boat that close is no easy feat. To get that close with a nuke is even harder.

Fear not the "dirty bomb" as it is more media hype than a practical weapon. To make one really work you need some heavily radioactive material. When the bomb material is that radioactive it will make the bomb maker and driver sick or dead before they can get it detonated. If they use a lower-dose material then it is not that dangerous. Then there is dispersal. You have to make a bomb that will spread the material but not vaporize it in the explosion. Far easier said than done. Lots of machine work and proper setting of detonations.

What I fear more is the reaction of the scared-of-anything American Public. People are so fast to assume anything that happens is terrorism. People are afraid to accept *any* level of risk. The enemy can win from within.

The pilot of the enola gay died at age 92. I cant see why if people work in a neuclear power plant without getting sick. a bomb transported under a concrete bell that gets lifted when detenation occurs would cause any health problems. to ship workers

I am not one to think of this daily, or even wonder about it weekly or monthly. But this topic about the economic long term effects of competition of China, and India....made me think that something in the world is gonna occur over the next 20 years to make any prediction today useless.

To think that a commercial freighter with other items on it, couldnt be used as a method of getting close to shore or even docking with the bomb going off in harbour or a few miles off is optomistic on your part. Just as commercial airplanes being used to be bombs themselves. WHo would have thunk. So I cant dismiss a group being successful with a helping hand from a silent partner like russia/ iran or others.

The hatred for out country is so intense nothing would surprise me. The propoganda that people get from the time they were children intensivies the hatred even more as people are poor and suffereing in those countries. About 10 years ago I saw a propaganda piece from pakistan, that showed fat lound american people laughing and stuffing their faces at buffets, and showing the food that was thrown out..the food they left behind to be discarded....and this is being watched by people starving.....wishing they had a couple of extra crackers for themselves and their children, feeliing the pain of hunger......and the americans are laughing and getting fat, while throwing out plates and plates of food. Now I dont feel ashamed of going to buffets and eating what i want and tossing what I dont like.......but from where they stand......propaganda like this burns the hatred till a select few decide they are gonna do something special in the name of allah.

The election here preyed upon the same hatred within our
country. God forbid you should be one of the dreaded 1%,


If we dont kill each other inwardly,,,,there are plenty of people on the outside willing to try.
Recently in californina in a well off community, overnight....people woke up to see their homes spray painted " fk the 1%".....

So getting back to the original thoughts...about the economy in relation to communisim or demorcracy.....I cant assume this will all play out without external factors making a big difference.

The point of a dirty bomb is you don't need to control the nuclear detonation, but you just gather up a lot of already radioactive material and get it scattered across an area. Little Boy andFat Man weren't radioactive when being carried. Once the critical mass was generated, then the bomb would go off and big boom. The radiation didn't last that long (you can visit ground zero with no ill effects, not something you can say about Chernobyl). A dirty bomb with a pile of a stuff with longer half life (which will, I think mean less intense radiation) might take a lot longer to be 'safe' for prolonged exposure. I mean you can visit the forests around Chernobyl, but it's not deemed safe to live there, and there is worries of a forest fire creating a secondary dirty cloud.

All said, I do agree that we over state the risks of terrorism... there's so much security theatre and pressure on (misguided) 'safety' that you could claim the terrorists are winning... I was talking about this the other day on safety measures... how do you tell the parents of a dead kid that you won't close down and fence of the swimming hole where little Johnny drowned in an accident (but 1,000s of other kids have had the time of their lives there through the years).

'Won't someone do -something-' is the refrain when ever there is a disaster or a death that might have been preventable.

Quote: LarryS

The pilot of the enola gay died at age 92. I cant see why if people work in a neuclear power plant without getting sick. a bomb transported under a concrete bell that gets lifted when detenation occurs would cause any health problems. to ship workers

To think that a commercial freighter with other items on it, couldnt be used as a method of getting close to shore or even docking with the bomb going off in harbour or a few miles off is optomistic on your part. Just as commercial airplanes being used to be bombs themselves. WHo would have thunk. So I cant dismiss a group being successful with a helping hand from a silent partner like russia/ iran or others.

As was stated above, the Fat Man and Little Boy weapons were not dirty bombs. They had small cores contained in the bomb. Nuclear workers work behind large cement and lead walls for limited periods. I was just in a welding class where the instructor talked about welding jobs in nuke plants and said they could be a sweet gig because you work for about an hour then most of the rest of the shift in decomtamination. Dirty bomb makers will get no such precautions, they will have to handle the material with at most gloves and a respirator.

Your "concrete bell" idea is IMHO not realistic to expect. Such a thing needs to be both constructed, transported, and lifted off before detonation. And it will have to be shortly before because again, to be of value the material will need to be so toxic that people would be getting sick, though not die, right after exposure. All of this is of a tall order.

Ships carrying nukes will be spotted by satellite scans thousands of miles before they arrive.

It is easy to say what *could* happen, but how likely is another thing.

Quote:

The election here preyed upon the same hatred within our
country. God forbid you should be one of the dreaded 1%,

I agree here, but you do not need to be part of the 1%, just being in the top 20% and running a business is enough to bring hatred from the current folks in power and thus their followers. It is as if you are successful you did not work for it.

It would take few hours to destroy all ships. Satellite aimed rockets made navy useless.

Quote: AZDuffman

What I fear more is the reaction of the scared-of-anything American Public.

Quote: thecesspit

All said, I do agree that we over state the risks of terrorism... there's so much security theatre and pressure on (misguided) 'safety' that you could claim the terrorists are winning...

'Won't someone do -something-' is the refrain when ever there is a disaster or a death that might have been preventable.

Having just flown, I had this very thought. Cess, you beat me to it.

OBL was a two bit punk that got lucky. We and we alone raised him to god-status among thousands of his followers. To think we "won" anything upon his death is a fallacy; the constant victory we give him day in and day out, even now years after his death, is proof we lost and are still losing.

And it's all our own, pathetic fault.

GJ, America

/rant.

Quote: AZDuffman

As was stated above, the Fat Man and Little Boy weapons were not dirty bombs. They had small cores contained in the bomb. Nuclear workers work behind large cement and lead walls for limited periods. I was just in a welding class where the instructor talked about welding jobs in nuke plants and said they could be a sweet gig because you work for about an hour then most of the rest of the shift in decomtamination. Dirty bomb makers will get no such precautions, they will have to handle the material with at most gloves and a respirator.

Your "concrete bell" idea is IMHO not realistic to expect. Such a thing needs to be both constructed, transported, and lifted off before detonation. And it will have to be shortly before because again, to be of value the material will need to be so toxic that people would be getting sick, though not die, right after exposure. All of this is of a tall order.

Ships carrying nukes will be spotted by satellite scans thousands of miles before they arrive.

It is easy to say what *could* happen, but how likely is another thing.




I agree here, but you do not need to be part of the 1%, just being in the top 20% and running a business is enough to bring hatred from the current folks in power and thus their followers. It is as if you are successful you did not work for it.

you seem to be more aware of the transport of nuclear bombs than me....but was the bombs in the enola gay killing the crew members? They seemed to live a good long life

I am not talking about a dirty bomb.....I am talkking about a full nuclear bomb. Idont worry about the people getting sick on the boat...if the bomb goes off on the boat as I suggest the intent would be....I dont think radiation poisoning is an issue. They will get to have their 40 virgins...so what if they glow in the dark.

I don't know. But I would guess not, even though I am no economics expert. There are many things that effect America's economy, and if anything China opening up for trade has had a major benefit on many corporations. America's most recent recession is related to internal issues.

However, I would say even if that is true (which I'm not sure that it is, in fact I would guess that its not), the improvement of living standards for a large percentage of the world's population make it worth it. I would never wish that billions of people should live in poverty just to slightly improve our financial status.

Also, China still identifies itself as communist (or at the least state centric). And India has never been communist...

But the U.S. certainly has not lost its global leadership. It still has a military unrivaled by any other country by a long shot. And is one of only 7 nations of the security council. And still tends to get its way with foreign affairs even if unpopular....

-edit- Also to clarify my position I am a libertarian, so I am against communism everywhere. I think that free trade and free thought in the long run will bring a better quality of life for all countries. And even if turning some former communist countries into capitalistic democracies has a short term harm on America's economy (and again I am not sure that is does) it is worth it for the long run and a better world as a whole.

The stand between East and West is eminent. Scarce resources and new technologies plus lack of leadership and selfish interests would lead to confrontation. Russia's main objective in recent escalation has been a test of Obama's administration, which proved to be weak and undesisive. Newly formed economies will try to gain leadership at any cost

Quote: Face

Having just flown, I had this very thought. Cess, you beat me to it.

OBL was a two bit punk that got lucky. We and we alone raised him to god-status among thousands of his followers. To think we "won" anything upon his death is a fallacy; the constant victory we give him day in and day out, even now years after his death, is proof we lost and are still losing.

And it's all our own, pathetic fault.

GJ, America

/rant.

After OBL we had the shoe bomber, the underpants bombers and the liquid plot.

You know, just in case we didn't have enough hassle getting on to a plane already. I think someone worked out it would have to be a plane or two a month being lost or hijacked to make -fiscal- sense to do all this security theatre. While we all know (suspect) it's the targetted operations and allowing staff to think (see the 'hinkey' bomber who got caught at Port Angeles) that stops threats.

Quote: LarryS

I am not talking about a dirty bomb.....I am talkking about a full nuclear bomb. Idont worry about the people getting sick on the boat...if the bomb goes off on the boat as I suggest the intent would be....I dont think radiation poisoning is an issue. They will get to have their 40 virgins...so what if they glow in the dark.

Earlier the talk was about a dirty bomb which is what would get the bomb maker sick before it would be able to work. A regular nuke is a different animal. To make a working nuke is extraordinarily difficult. It is so difficult that only the USA has done it without stealing or being given part of the process. And it took building a city to make one in 1945. The components to make one are specialized, you cannot just order centrifuges for delivery on Amazon.com.

IOW, a state actor needs to be involved. And a state actor would have more to gain by having the nuke than using it in such a way.

Quote: AZDuffman

Earlier the talk was about a dirty bomb which is what would get the bomb maker sick before it would be able to work. A regular nuke is a different animal. To make a working nuke is extraordinarily difficult. It is so difficult that only the USA has done it without stealing or being given part of the process. And it took building a city to make one in 1945. The components to make one are specialized, you cannot just order centrifuges for delivery on Amazon.com.

IOW, a state actor needs to be involved. And a state actor would have more to gain by having the nuke than using it in such a way.

Its been suspected that Isreal has the bomb, Its theorized that without controls, Iran or Syria could each have one in a couple years.

Yes we had a 65 year jump on these folks...but eventually they will at least get to the point where we were 65 years ago.

There have been reports of poor controls in the soviet union where materials have gone missing

And then there is the method I mentioned before where interested parties in russia, or china, or india, or iran, give away the bomb, and hence a nuclear attack by proxy.

the old movies where satellites see the bombs coming from a siloh in a specific country are outdated in todays world.

If my original threat scenario was pulled off.....it will be by some wacko "organization"......secretly funded by a country. Leaving retaliation impossible to justify.

heck...dirty bombs are nothing....compared to this. And it doesnt even have to be brought onto US soil.....to make some of the most expensive real estate in the world worthless.....and effecting millions of people cramed into a small small area.

thats why obama said, russia is not as big a threat as a nuclear bomb( or just regular bomb..i forget) going off in NYC....although his worry could be originated from russia...it might be one in the same

Shoot, the recent gas explosion in NYC shows how easy it can be to destroy stuff. Big empty place and gas.

I can't see anyone really controlling the world in the greater sense even if the U.S. is in decline. It's a really big job, is the main thing. Smaller nations have to work together. Trying to control diverse peoples is fraught with difficulty across thousands of miles.

It's not really control, more like interfering once in awhile, and trying to push in one direction or another.

Quote: LarryS

Its been suspected that Isreal has the bomb, Its theorized that without controls, Iran or Syria could each have one in a couple years.

Yes we had a 65 year jump on these folks...but eventually they will at least get to the point where we were 65 years ago.

There have been reports of poor controls in the soviet union where materials have gone missing

And then there is the method I mentioned before where interested parties in russia, or china, or india, or iran, give away the bomb, and hence a nuclear attack by proxy.

I concede it is all possible and we need to be on watch, but like searching the 5 year old kid getting on the airplane because he is the random number of the day and we do not want to "offend" anyone there are more probable methods.

When I was in pest control there was a powder that a few grams of could kill you or I if ingested. Not hard to get your hands on it and not hard to get a few hundred pounds over a year or so. No long term radiation but lots of kill. And it would take a few days to work. Dispersal would be easy, it was in powder form. BOOM. That is just one thing I know about, a good chemist could do far better.

If I wanted to really shake things up I would pull a Walter White on Tuco and spike the dope supply with ricin. As junkies started dying off half the USA would be crying for them and wanting the feds to "do something" while the other half would see it as not the worst thing.

Nukes are overkill.

I'm pretty sure there's no question about Israel; they have the bomb. Part of what has been so alarming about the last 20 years of Soviet disintegration post-breakup has been the comparatively lax supervision and control of components in the former Socialist Republics. But in practical terms, I don't see the bomb as a high-percentage catastrophic or terrorist-based occurence compared to dispersion of chemical or biological agents into a large population. It's been my experience that the US gov't also sees this as the greater threat.

I worked as the SME for about a year a decade ago on a now-declassified joint DOD program examining how to detect the airborne attacks of something dangerous to a large population, what radars would best detect that, what the agent signature would look like, and the like. The most likely scenario is for the terrorist to get their substance stabilized into a powdery or liquid form, go up in a slow-flying aircraft, and simply dump it out the window either on a large metropolis or over a large open-air event, letting the wind disperse it onto the population. Very low-tech once you have the substance, almost impossible to stop before the event, so almost all of the effort is concentrated on detecting the occurence and reacting quickly and appropriately to the event and the particular contaminant.

Botulism, anthrax, smallpox, several other biological substances, especially those that can be breathed in powder form rather than needing suspension in liquid; those are the nightmare scenaria, but knowing what to look for and reacting in the first hours makes a difference of geometric proportions. Example: dumping x amount of anthrax over Boston Harbor, accounting for wind: detection and prophylactic measures in the first 8 hours, 90 people die; 24 hours, 3000 people die; 48 hours, 60000 people die; left for 72 hours, 500,000 people die. There are similar monitoring and safeguards over the water supply, but both are considered vulnerable points for mass casualty attacks post 9-11. (This was all covered on a CNN special, then wide-media at the time, circa 2005, so I'm not writing a how-to handbook here.)

One of the funnier parts of the program (and there weren't many) was, early on, they determined that egg albumen (egg whites) were the correct consistency to mimic some of the biological agents in medium suspension, so they put together a few gallons of it and dumped it out the window of a Cessna onto Oklahoma to see what the radar signature looked like on different bands. Seemed harmless to them, but it turns out that the albumen itself was considered a biological agent because of possible bacterial contaminants, and they got fined for it, hey hey!

I think that I would just like to restate what I originally had said when I began this thread.

My thesis is that in a world of similar economies, free or nearly free, the global economic leader will be the one with the largest populace. Since the 2 most populace nations are China and India, I believe one of them will eventually become the economic leader on this globe. The USA will lose that position.

At some time after that, the economic leader shall also become the global leader militarily. The USA will los that position.

China's economy will be larger than America's by 2025, but the U.S. GDP per capita will still be four times larger. Ever since the 50's Americans have been scared of the next big thing that was going to take over and crush us. USSR, Japan, Germany and now China. I'll believe it when I see it.

Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm pretty sure there's no question about Israel; they have the bomb. Part of what has been so alarming about the last 20 years of Soviet disintegration post-breakup has been the comparatively lax supervision and control of components in the former Socialist Republics. But in practical terms, I don't see the bomb as a high-percentage catastrophic or terrorist-based occurence compared to dispersion of chemical or biological agents into a large population. It's been my experience that the US gov't also sees this as the greater threat.

This shows the feds know the truth about nukes. Obtaining one may make a good movie, but in reality there is more to it. They are not push-button. They have a shelf-life. Unless you get one in complete form you are not going to put it together, they are not a Heathkit.

There are a thousand ways to do it, but where the terrorist gets caught is in the planning stages. You have to really spread purchases around. You need to have it delivered to different places. You have to have a reason to be hanging around when you case things. Terrorists miss lots of this. They caught the 1993 WTC Bomber when he returned for his deposit on the rented van. REALLY?? A smart person would rent the van, remove the VIN, steal a plate, wipe the prints, and hop a plane out of Dodge. They missed all of it.

You need a large group to do all the buying, transport, and reconisance. But the larget the group the more points at which it can be discovered. The more idiots down the line that can do something stupid. Anyone who has managed entry-level employees knows how many ways they can screw up doing the dumbest things. (I had one get pesticide in his eyes by filling his sprayer with the wind blowing towards him. I have to tell a grown man not to do that? Really??) You do something stupid in a restaurant the customer does not come back. You do it as part of a plot and you get discovered.

Sooner or later something big and bad will happen, but in the meantime know that it is not near as easy as it is in the movies.

Quote:

One of the funnier parts of the program (and there weren't many) was, early on, they determined that egg albumen (egg whites) were the correct consistency to mimic some of the biological agents in medium suspension, so they put together a few gallons of it and dumped it out the window of a Cessna onto Oklahoma to see what the radar signature looked like on different bands. Seemed harmless to them, but it turns out that the albumen itself was considered a biological agent because of possible bacterial contaminants, and they got fined for it, hey hey!

Fired for dropping an omelette out a window--now that is our government at work!