Thread: Pres. Obama, between a rock and a hard place.

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

Sorry Joe, but where have you been. The Soviets perfected this years ago, we have the capability to shoot small nuclear devices(the size of a softball) through artillery pieces.

See my edit.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

See my edit.

I'll see your edit and raise you a deletion.

Originally Posted by JMS

I don't necessarily mean we should get directly involved just that we should stand up and say we believe in the cause of freedom and do not stand for tyrants, or something along those lines. Just a firm statement of where we stand.

And that way, the current government would have all they need to stand up, and accuse the rebels of being puppets for the great Satan. That would greatly turn the tables and pretty much end whatever is happening, because every proud muslim who was still inthe middle will want to have nothing to do with it.

Like it or not, but this is none of our business until the dust has settled. And then we will deal with whoever is still standing. Any other approach will probably make things worse.

Originally Posted by jockeys

except when it doesn't. 2 examples:
Germany, Germany again.

The difference was that Germany invaded -other- countries.
And the US only got involved in WW2 because they were attacked. And they only helped with Germany because Japan and Germany has signed a pact to link their fates.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

I can't agree. In the world as it now is it's not that N Korea or Iran will start a war with us or any other Western nation. All they have to do is give a terrorist a small tactical nuclear weapon which could fit in a suitcase, ship it to a country say England put it in a truck, drive it downtown London and set it off. It could take out a few square blocks kill thousands and make the city uninhabitable for an eternity and eventually kill millions through cancer. That is the real threat. Just try tracing that back to any singular country.

That is indeed correct. Fortunately, it is not possible to fit several a hundred kilograms of enriched uranium + a lot of lead shielding into a suitcase. And then there is the matter of inconspicuously moving the briefcase with a forklift...

NK has a Uranium gun type design that resembles little boy. It's basically slamming 2 halves of Uranium together to make 1 critical mass. It is simple, but requires a lot of uranium, and it is very heavy. It's not convenient. It's a poor man's nuke.

What 'we' (the big players) have are implosion type Plutonium devices. If there are suitcase nukes, they would be of this design.
This is where the real money is at. They are smaller, and need far less material. The problem is you need enriched Plutonium, which is a bitch to make and purify, even if you have the raw material and the reactors.

And then there is the matter of imploding it.
The idea is that a non critical ball of Pu is squashed together to make it critical. The squashing together is done by surrounding the ball with a high explosives and making them go 'bang' at the exact same microsecond. Any glitch i timing and you will not have a bang but a giant squirt of radioactive material. Still dangerous, but you don't need such advanced stuff just to make a dirty bomb.

So as far as suitcase nukes go, I am not afraid that one will find it's way to a western nation. If it happens, it will come from one of the big players who have the resources and the knowledge to make one. It won't come from one of the rogue nations.

Originally Posted by joesixpack

You say it yourself, "We should do what we do based on what is right and best for all involved", in this case, "best for all involved" seems to be staying the hell out. The US has a pretty poor track record whenit comes to creating democracies where there were none before. Let them earn their democracy the way we did. If they want help, let them ask for it.

There WAS a democratic government in Iran in 1953.
Dwight Eisenhower told the CIA to go ahead with operation Ajax and help topple the govenment, in return for agreements about oil. That's how much the US government likes democracy.

Originally Posted by Bruno

There WAS a democratic government in Iran in 1953.
Dwight Eisenhower told the CIA to go ahead with operation Ajax and help topple the govenment, in return for agreements about oil. That's how much the US government likes democracy.

And if we go again and have our say in their problems most people will feel we are doing the same thing again!

let them solve their problems...that's it...if it get to a point where the government start killing thousand of people just to keep power i would be all in for doing something...
it might sound selfish but is not...
you cant help others when you are broken inside...

I really wonder that in all this long thread no one considered that usually the World Security Council decides whether to react or what sanctions to execute.

Afaik, official policy is that the internal affairs of another nation is 'not our business' unless it involves genocide or acts of war towards another country.

As long as this stays an internal affair, I don't expect anyone will be stupid enough to interfere. Even if they would like to, they can't. Because as I explained earlier, that will paint the rebels as sock puppets for foreign agents, and quickly turn all moderates against the revolutionaries. And I think given the choice, all major players want the fundies out of power.

We will deal with whoever is still standing at the end, and hope and pray it's not the fundies. Any other choice will only make things worse for the revolutionaries.

Wow has Bruno ever saved me a lot of writing here.

All the points Bruno has made, plus the fact that Obama doesn't have the balls to get in there anyway.