StarDestroyer.Net BBS

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.
(400*2)*500000= 400,000,000$$

I can poke around. I know someone who has access to the R1/P1 documentation for the DOD, though he's rather busy at the moment.

Actually, just about anyone can have access to DOD data, or at least they could for a while now. Some .mil domains were granting admin access without requiring authorization.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/29026.html

Knife wrote:

phongn wrote:

Montcalm wrote: It never stopped the cia before.

There is an executive order against the assasination of heads of state. There is a loophole, however, that in a conflict you can kill the enemy CINC.

If he is in uniform, he is a ligitimate target. If he has civies on but has a weapon, he is a combatent (either legal or illegal) and is a target.

If he has civies on but commands his forces (a'la POTUS) he's legitimate. If he's in uniform he's legit. Which is what I said earlier

Hotfoot wrote:

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.
(400*2)*500000= 400,000,000$$

I can poke around. I know someone who has access to the R1/P1 documentation for the DOD, though he's rather busy at the moment.

Actually, just about anyone can have access to DOD data, or at least they could for a while now. Some .mil domains were granting admin access without requiring authorization.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/29026.html

Just because you have some access to some DOD data doesn't mean you have access to the R1/P1 documentation!

jaeger115 wrote:Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.

Still not easy to do. AFAIK we tried in Desert Storm.

Hotfoot wrote:

phongn wrote:

Pu-239 wrote:Each cruise missile ~500 thousand, possibly more.
(400*2)*500000= 400,000,000$$

I can poke around. I know someone who has access to the R1/P1 documentation for the DOD, though he's rather busy at the moment.

Actually, just about anyone can have access to DOD data, or at least they could for a while now. Some .mil domains were granting admin access without requiring authorization.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/29026.html

I know. I posted that before.

+1

phongn wrote:

Hotfoot wrote:Actually, just about anyone can have access to DOD data, or at least they could for a while now. Some .mil domains were granting admin access without requiring authorization.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/29026.html

Just because you have some access to some DOD data doesn't mean you have access to the R1/P1 documentation!

True, but did you read the article? That's a pretty massive security hole they've got there. Unless that documentation is kept wholly severed from the web entirely, someone might be able to take a peek.

Probably hasn't happened, but still, that's a damn serious security threat.

It appears that said documentation is not available on the Web, but only in books and such - or some seperate database on the military networks.

Darth Wong wrote:Interesting strategy, consistent with a "total war" approach. Of course they're going to hit civilians; I wonder if they're going to bother declaring war this time. They normally don't; they just start dropping bombs (strangely enough, they are still outraged 50 years after the fact about the Japanese doing the same thing to them).

[1] War's been going on since 1991, and the cease fire died in 1998
[2] UN action covered by multipul resolutions, you don't decalre war as part of UN actions.

phongn wrote:

jaeger115 wrote:Is there anything wrong with a simple assassination? Of course, Saddam has three doubles, but we've figured out how to tell each other apart.

Still not easy to do. AFAIK we tried in Desert Storm.

Evidently his convoy was bombed at one point, but his vehicle was not hit.

phongn wrote:I think one part was that Imperial Japan had, more or less, conveyed that they wanted continued peace with the US, then attacked.

Rather less than more.Political tension was rising.Only a blind would have not seen that .They might have put out a little PR bullshit about peace,but after all even Bush has done the same.

. Meanwhile here Bush has been preaching about fighting Iraq since he got elected.

With good bloody reason or did the Events of 98 Mean nothing to you when Saddam kicked the Inspectors out and saided FU to the entire UN establisment along with America

Mr Bean wrote:

. Meanwhile here Bush has been preaching about fighting Iraq since he got elected.

With good bloody reason or did the Events of 98 Mean nothing to you when Saddam kicked the Inspectors out and saided FU to the entire UN establisment along with America

Why would he, the previous administation didn't.
It seems alot would disreguard alot of info to avoid any conflict even if the conflict would save more than continuing "containment" that has failed miserably.

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:So, they're going to hit civilians, unless I misread?

Not intentionally, but it's almost certain that civilians are going to be hit.

That would mean that it's intentional. Of course, I'm sure that Bush will try and pass the massive civilian deaths off as "unfortunate collateral damage" ... that we had full knowledge would occur.

Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to the newest terrorist on the block, George Dubya Bush.

Montcalm wrote:Interesting strategy warn two months in advance that will give enough time to Saddam to run away then come back and claim he won again.

If he's under house arrest in Khartoum, then I really don't care if he claims he's won or not. They're giving him an escape hatch so 1) he'll quit before war starts, or 2) if it comes to war, he doesn't make decisions based on, "Well, I'm going to die anyway, so I might as well...".

Durandal wrote:

phongn wrote:

Durandal wrote:So, they're going to hit civilians, unless I misread?

Not intentionally, but it's almost certain that civilians are going to be hit.

That would mean that it's intentional. Of course, I'm sure that Bush will try and pass the massive civilian deaths off as "unfortunate collateral damage" ... that we had full knowledge would occur.

Ladies and gentlemen, say hello to the newest terrorist on the block, George Dubya Bush.

Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

Steve wrote:Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

Actually, that is exactly the way it works; if you use indiscriminate weapons that are bound to cause civillian casualties, then you have effectively decided to deliberately cause civilian casualties.

So? Civilian casualties occur in every modern war. It'd be nice if we could just line our armies up and duke it out in the middle of the desert but I doubt Saddam will oblige us.

Darth Wong wrote:

Steve wrote:Your logic sounds suspicious.

"They won't be targeted intentionally, but since it's almost certain that civilians will be hit somewhere, it's intentional"?

Actually, that is exactly the way it works; if you use indiscriminate weapons that are bound to cause civillian casualties, then you have effectively decided to deliberately cause civilian casualties.

There is no intentional effort to target said civilians. Accepting the fact that civilians will be killed in a war, and taking steps to reduce the likeliness of this happen, using only PGM's in urban areas and not jettisoning ordnance, is not the same as specifically targeting civilians.

Please define indiscriminate weapon. You can argue that absolutely anything from a paper contract to a nuclear device is a weapon and any weapon is indiscriminate. Effectively making the term meaningless.

dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

salm wrote:dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. If the rest of the world wants to have a say, they should invest in some more, and an acutal ability to move them anywhere.

salm wrote:dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

Doing this might create a coallition of arab country, and since arabs control oil they will turn off the tap.

Doing this might create a coallition of arab country, and since arabs control oil they will turn off the tap.

Actually, we have South America and Russia.

Montcalm wrote:

salm wrote:dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

Doing this might create a coallition of arab country, and since arabs control oil they will turn off the tap.

And then they'll go broke. Their entire economy is based on crude oil. In a way, they're as trapped by their oil reserves as we are.

Montcalm wrote:

salm wrote:dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

Doing this might create a coallition of arab country, and since arabs control oil they will turn off the tap.

There are quite a few other countries with oil.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

salm wrote:dropping 800 big warheads on irak within 2 days will be such an image boost worldwide for the usa. of course that´s not important for bush and his gang since the us is the only superpower worldwide and therefore doubtlessly right and unimpeachable.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun. If the rest of the world wants to have a say, they should invest in some more, and an acutal ability to move them anywhere.

you´ve missed the point. the us is losing more and more image worldwide because of stuff like that. if they continue like that they´re going to lose allies as well and nations which were formerly pretty much neutral might turn hostile.
imo, there´s no problem with the us being the only superpower and having the role of the world police but they need to use their power more responsible. if the entire world is against the usa all their powerful weapons won´t do them any good as long as they dont want to nuke the rest of the planet.