Iran's manhattan project speeds ahead....

[Sea Skimmer]

I think you're also overestimating NATO's interest in dropping a massive plume of radioactive sand into China's backyard. Who says we'd fire nukes back at Iran? We don't need carpet nuking to level them, and we certainly don't need to level them if they already shot their nuclear wad and don't have anything else of a big scale left.

So basically you have no concept of deterrence is what you are saying? Credible difference has been the basis of US security since the late 1940s, and if we let someone nuke our or our declared allies and don’t nuke them in return, all that credibility flies out the window. That means we can look forward to being nuked again in the future. Iran is not going to push its luck on this as long as it has a secure, stable government. Too bad the current government was installed by a mob in the street. It’s when Iran’s fundamentalist government starts decaying that we get the real trouble, and Iran’s skyrocketing population and especially the enormous fraction of the population under the age of 20, combined with declining oil revenue is setting up the conditions for that.

[TC Pilot]

Pardon my somewhat ignorant understanding of military matters...

But wouldn't it be possible to just deploy an ABM site or two around Iran to blow away any ICBMs they may launch in the future?

[SirNitram]

Pardon my somewhat ignorant understanding of military matters...

But wouldn't it be possible to just deploy an ABM site or two around Iran to blow away any ICBMs they may launch in the future?

If you could find a state willing to allow a US base in them. The USA has kinda shot it's negotiating position in the foot, calf, knee, thigh, and hip there.

IIRC, though, you could just set patrols of Aegis cruisers with those ship-launched interceptors in the region to pop any that launch.

[Ryan Thunder]

There's a large country in North America with ties to active terrorist organizations, has already built and actually used atomic weapons, and has the means to obliterate every major city on Earth right now. The country in question has also flouted international law. Maybe we should bomb them too -right?

You are one dumb twat.

I was wondering how long it would be before one of you flagellants would be unable to resist the opportunity to spout your pointless nonsense. Thanks for again suggesting nothing to solve the problem or sufficiently demonstrate that it isn't a problem in the first place.

[SirNitram]

There's a large country in North America with ties to active terrorist organizations, has already built and actually used atomic weapons, and has the means to obliterate every major city on Earth right now. The country in question has also flouted international law. Maybe we should bomb them too -right?

You are one dumb twat.

I was wondering how long it would be before one of you flagellants would be unable to resist the opportunity to spout your pointless nonsense. Thanks for again suggesting nothing to solve the problem or sufficiently demonstrate that it isn't a problem in the first place.

Generally, logical people assess whether something is a problem, not blindly assume it must be one.

What, precisely, is the threat to be countered? Why can it not be countered by simply arranging for an SM-3 capable vessel being in position when worst-case scenarios for enrichment from this reactor-grade material could hit weapons-grade?

Or is your entire argument based off this idiotic idea that someone screaming obscenities is automatically a threat if armed? Dude, have you ever lived in a decent sized city? Being yelled at by people who probably have weapons is part of life. You don't flip out vigilante.

[MKSheppard]

I see that Nitram is continuing his idiocy from 2007 and before, specifically his argument:

"It's not a problem because Iran doesn't have enough of x"



Gee, Iran sure stopped their centrifuge program after the first couple exploded.

Right now Iran definitely has the following weapons:

Shahab-1 300 km range with about 985 kg (162 nm)
Shahab-2 600 km range with about 600 kg (324 nm)
Shahab-3 (Early) 1,200 km range with about 1,200 kg (650 nm)
Shahab-3 (Late) 1,500 to 1,800 km range with about 700? kg (972 nm)

Shahab 4 2,000 km range with about 700? kg warhead
The regime decided not to produce it; as it was probably insufficient advance over later marks of Sahab-3s.

On the drawing boards and in intensive work are the following weapons:

Shahab 5 4,000 km range with 700? kg (2,160 nm)
Shahab 6 "Khowsar" 6,000 km range with 500 to 1,000 kg (3,240 nm)

This translates into:

Link to Map

Right now, Iran can hit Israel, with their Shahab 3s, if they fire them from the far western portions of Iran; I'm assuming any real heavy missiles will be based in the center of Iran, for the simple reason that they'll be in the middle of the Iranian IADS, in the same manner we put SAC at Omaha, since it was at the center of CONUS.

Down the road a few years from now; hey look, all of Europe is threatened by Iranian Khowsar missiles!

Which brings me to my next point.

If you could find a state willing to allow a US base in them. The USA has kinda shot it's negotiating position in the foot, calf, knee, thigh, and hip there.

You know, that (dead/maybe not dead) Polish/Czechslovakian ABM site is you know ideally positioned to shoot down Shahab 5 and 6 missiles headed towards our NATO allies in Europe. But the site's been effectively killed dead by Barry, meaning that in the next four years or so, we will not have the site achieving IOC just as the Iranians are deploying the Shahab 5 and 6.

And of course, Iran already has a longish range strike capability in the F-4s and F-14s it already flies. Just hang up the device from the centerline bomb rack; and send 'em on a one way flight.

[SirNitram]

I see that Nitram is continuing his idiocy from 2007 and before, specifically his argument:

"It's not a problem because Iran doesn't have enough of x"

<Snip graph that shows next five years projected development, because projected development is NEVER EVER SLOWED.>

Gosh, it seems Shep is desperately flailing around trying to post an answer without answering one single question posed. Five years? Okay. Put a SM-3 carrying vessel in position in five years, if you're paranoid about this. One year? Do the same.

You have a serious bug up your ass for.. What? Because I mocked an incompetent mistake that led to destruction? Or because you hallucinated that I said that meant that years later, they could not possibly have recovered?

[Count Chocula]

And, if Iran has the Russian Moskit or Sunburn missile, they would probably close off Persian Gulf shipping and attempt to, or succeed in, striking any Aegis platforms within its estimates 100km range.

[MKSheppard]

Gosh, it seems Shep is desperately flailing around trying to post an answer without answering one single question posed.

Funny how you haven't answered any of my questions.

Going from 134 centrifuges in 2006, to about 5,600 today despite severe problems with them exploding does not fill me with sweetness and light; especially now that they've worked out the bugs in the centrifuges and can now mass produce them.

Your entire argument is based around "look! the Iranians don't have the stuff to be a threat to usyet", in effect kicking the can down the road.

Well guess what, it's two years down the road from the exploding centrifuge incident, and they show no sign of slowing down. What do we do now?

Five years? Okay. Put a SM-3 carrying vessel in position in five years, if you're paranoid about this.

That's so stupid I can't even begin to comprehend it.

1.) You're going to have to devote at least four, maybe five SM-3 equipped ships in order to keep one unit on station 24/7. Probably eight ships, which is a not insignificant fraction of the fleet if you want a backup shooter to back up the main shooter.

2.) The current SM-3 Block I vehicle has a Vbo of about 3.5-4.0 km/sec. The planned Block II which will be developed with Japan will have a Vbo of 5 km/sec

The distance from a US Navy ship in the center of the Arabian Gulf armed with SM-3 to the center of Iran is about 800 kilometers.

SM-3 Block I would take about 200-228 seconds to get there, while Block II would take 160 seconds.

By that time, guess what?

The IRBM will have completed it's powered flight profile and burned out at a velocity of about 5.7 km sec at a distance of about 300-400 km away from it's launch site.

Oh, guess what?

GBI in Poland by dint of being a much huger missile, has a burn out velocity of 8~ km/sec, and instead of being in a energy losing tail chase against the Iranian missile, is actually in a head-on closing attack run, a much more advantageous position.

[SirNitram]

Gosh, it seems Shep is desperately flailing around trying to post an answer without answering one single question posed.

Funny how you haven't answered any of my questions.

Going from 134 centrifuges in 2006, to about 5,600 today despite severe problems with them exploding does not fill me with sweetness and light; especially now that they've worked out the bugs in the centrifuges and can now mass produce them.

Your entire argument is based around "look! the Iranians don't have the stuff to be a threat to usyet", in effect kicking the can down the road.

Well guess what, it's two years down the road from the exploding centrifuge incident, and they show no sign of slowing down. What do we do now?

I've put some ideas on the floor. Position the most mobile interceptors that've proven themselves in position. So yes, I have answered your questions, you just lie because.. Shock and amazement, you're a troll.

Five years? Okay. Put a SM-3 carrying vessel in position in five years, if you're paranoid about this.

That's so stupid I can't even begin to comprehend it.

1.) You're going to have to devote at least four, maybe five SM-3 equipped ships in order to keep one unit on station 24/7. Probably eight ships, which is a not insignificant fraction of the fleet if you want a backup shooter to back up the main shooter.

2.) The current SM-3 Block I vehicle has a Vbo of about 3.5-4.0 km/sec. The planned Block II which will be developed with Japan will have a Vbo of 5 km/sec

The distance from a US Navy ship in the center of the Arabian Gulf armed with SM-3 to the center of Iran is about 800 kilometers.

SM-3 Block I would take about 200-228 seconds to get there, while Block II would take 160 seconds.

By that time, guess what?

The IRBM will have completed it's powered flight profile and burned out at a velocity of about 5.7 km sec at a distance of about 300-400 km away from it's launch site.

Oh, guess what?

GBI in Poland by dint of being a much huger missile, has a burn out velocity of 8~ km/sec, and instead of being in a energy losing tail chase against the Iranian missile, is actually in a head-on closing attack run, a much more advantageous position.

If political reality allows that, sure, go with that. Of course, if it does not, I've proposed a solution. Is it ideal? No, I'm not prideful and stupid enough to put forth any plan as ideal, and I frankly doubt any competent person can put forth an ideal plan honestly. Of course, you have to factor in the realities of the world, and not just stomp around and expect nothing bad to ever happen.

And this still relies on the idea of Iran actually getting to nukes and IRBMs, stationing them, and being an immediate threat. Pakistan has warheads aimed. No one is shitting themselves over that here, despite.. Yanno.. The obvious threats there.

[Elfdart]

Well guess what, it's two years down the road from the exploding centrifuge incident, and they show no sign of slowing down. What do we do now?

What this country should always do: mind its own business. So what if Iran has nukes? Are their leaders any nuttier than the ones in Pakistan or any other country armed with the atomic bomb? I hope the Iranians built a lot of A-bombs and the means to drop them. Then most of this semen-crusted saber-rattling bullshit will end.

That's so stupid I can't even begin to comprehend it.

Isn't that your problem?

[Ryan Thunder]

Well guess what, it's two years down the road from the exploding centrifuge incident, and they show no sign of slowing down. What do we do now?

What this country should always do: mind its own business. So what if Iran has nukes? Are their leaders any nuttier than the ones in Pakistan or any other country armed with the atomic bomb? I hope the Iranians built a lot of A-bombs and the means to drop them. Then most of this semen-crusted saber-rattling bullshit will end.

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

[Lord of the Abyss]

Right now, Iran can hit Israel, with their Shahab 3s, if they fire them from the far western portions of Iran; I'm assuming any real heavy missiles will be based in the center of Iran, for the simple reason that they'll be in the middle of the Iranian IADS, in the same manner we put SAC at Omaha, since it was at the center of CONUS.

Down the road a few years from now; hey look, all of Europe is threatened by Iranian Khowsar missiles!

For a very loose definition of the word "threatened". They are "threatened" by American and Russian missiles too after all.

Well guess what, it's two years down the road from the exploding centrifuge incident, and they show no sign of slowing down. What do we do now?

Nothing. Short of an invasion and occupation there's nothing we can do.

Frankly, I think that a nuclear armed Iran will do the region good. It'll impel the greatest source of instability - namely the US - to tread more carefully. and I see no reason to think that the Iranian leadership is suicidal enough to use them aggressively. Dying for Allah is reserved for the cannon fodder, not the leadership.

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First, America is sufficiently thuggish that I don't really care if it's good for America or not. Second, America's bullying behavior has been notably self destructive; forcing us to act like civilized beings and not thugs will be good for us, I think. Third, we don't have the moral right to attack everyone just because we feel like it.

[Axis Kast]

What this country should always do: mind its own business. So what if Iran has nukes? Are their leaders any nuttier than the ones in Pakistan or any other country armed with the atomic bomb? I hope the Iranians built a lot of A-bombs and the means to drop them. Then most of this semen-crusted saber-rattling bullshit will end.

Iran's leaders may not have direct control over their arsenal equivalent to what one sees in Russia and the United States. The nuclear weapons program is under the authority of the Revolutionary Guards, which self-select for ideological and regime loyalty, but also operate according to the principles of a military bureaucracy, which tends to favor acting first, acting quickly, and building greater numbers of more vulnerable missiles over smaller numbers of survivable warheads. If the Republican Guard can't even be relied upon to keep from causing international incidents in the Persian Gulf, how are we to trust them with nuclear weapons? The importance of a thing doesn't guarantee the competence of its custodians.

Your confidence in horizontal proliferation is astounding, given the increased chances for accident and/or security breaches with each new entrant to the nuclear pantheon. During the Cold War, luck was frequently an operative factor keeping us from nuclear exchange.

At the same time, your reference to "semen-crusted saber-rattling bullshit" is unconvincing. Is Obama rattling swords any more than Bush? And did Bush attack Iran? In point of fact, the Europeans are now more outspoken about Iran's progress than we are.

And this still relies on the idea of Iran actually getting to nukes and IRBMs, stationing them, and being an immediate threat. Pakistan has warheads aimed. No one is shitting themselves over that here, despite.. Yanno.. The obvious threats there.

Iran obviously desires nuclear weapons and IRBMs. If they did not, then they would simply compromise. There is a point at which the defense of one's national right to complete nuclear fuel cycles becomes trite and unconvincing. Particularly after twenty-two years of obfuscation, and many more of misbehavior.

Plenty of people lose sleep over Pakistan's nuclear weapons. Being unable to do much about it, and failing to decry the problem, are not one and the same. Go read something by Scott Sagan.

[SirNitram]

Axis, how is it you state the point of me bringing up Pakistan's nukes with this same screeching paranoia as shown by Thunder and Shep, and then not realize that's the point?

The reality of the situation is there's little we can do about Iran, save position weapons where we can get them sensibly.

[Elfdart]

So, you admit that you hope for your enemies' success, when their goal is to decrease your ability to influence that region. This is a good thing for you because...?

First of all fucktard, they aren't MY enemies. The US and Iran are not at war.

Second, there would be major American influence in the region just as there is throughout the rest of the world, even if every single American ship, plane and soldier was removed from the Middle East tomorrow. Has American influence fizzled in Spain, Greece or other countries where Uncle Sam's bases were closed? No. What wouldn't last is our clownshoes empire, but since the US is not supposed to be one and was never meant to be one, good riddance.

Third, since they don't teach geography like they used to I'll explain something: the Middle East is not the property of the United States of America. The more countries in the region that build nukes, the less likely they ever will be -and that's a good thing. I realize that many Americans have the sick notion that we have a god-given right to rob and kill brown people hard-wired into their lizard brains. Well, fuck 'em.

[Axis Kast]

Axis, how is it you state the point of me bringing up Pakistan's nukes with this same screeching paranoia as shown by Thunder and Shep, and then not realize that's the point?

Because you alleged that we can't say with strong confidence that Iran aims to build nuclear weapons (it almost certainly does). I also interpreted your comment on Pakistan to mean that nobody in the United States was concerned with Pakistan, rather than nobody in this current discussion.

I've said for a long time that there isn't anything we can do except levy punitive damages upon Iran, perhaps at very great cost to ourselves. I stand with Shep in endorsing ABM, and note that President Obama's assertion that the Russians must first prove that they've helped keep Iran from acquiring nukes before we will remove the interceptor fields from Eastern Europe seems to me to be an unreasonable demand. How could one ever satisfactorily verify a negative? Of course, that may have been Obama's intention -- to offer a deal the Russians couldn't accept.

Frankly, I think that a nuclear armed Iran will do the region good. It'll impel the greatest source of instability - namely the US - to tread more carefully. and I see no reason to think that the Iranian leadership is suicidal enough to use them aggressively. Dying for Allah is reserved for the cannon fodder, not the leadership.

It may very well spark a nuclear arms race.

You do yourself grave discredit. If Iranian leadership is responsible, the only "red lines" for nuclear weapons use would be either (1) retaliatory, or (2) in the instance of invasion.

If George Bush didn't nuke or attack Iran, it seems unlikely that Obama will do any different. Yet you suggest that we will still have "to treat more carefully." Why?

You're all for the United States playing "more fairly." You're worried about the bullying we do. What happens when you give a bully freedom from punishment? His behaviors only worsens. That's what you want to offer to Iran.

[SirNitram]

Axis, how is it you state the point of me bringing up Pakistan's nukes with this same screeching paranoia as shown by Thunder and Shep, and then not realize that's the point?

Because you alleged that we can't say with strong confidence that Iran aims to build nuclear weapons (it almost certainly does). I also interpreted your comment on Pakistan to mean that nobody in the United States was concerned with Pakistan, rather than nobody in this current discussion.

If I did indeed say we can't be sure, I withdraw it. As to your 'interpretation', it's laughable. I was referring to this thread.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And did Bush attack Iran?

He did fund terrorists ( people defined as terrorists by our own State Department ) operating inside Iran. And given that he was following PNAC's plans until they ran aground on the Iraqi's disinclination to fall in love with America's mass murder of their countrymen, it's a safe assumption that Bush WOULD have attacked Iran if everything had gone according to plan.

Iran obviously desires nuclear weapons and IRBMs. If they did not, then they would simply compromise.

Of course they want nukes; they'd be fools not to. And given that Saddam tried compromise and was rewarded with conquest and execution, it's not like the American version of "compromise" is something the Iranian leadership is likely to be interested in.

You do yourself grave discredit. If Iranian leadership is responsible, the only "red lines" for nuclear weapons use would be either (1) retaliatory, or (2) in the instance of invasion.

If George Bush didn't nuke or attack Iran, it seems unlikely that Obama will do any different. Yet you suggest that we will still have "to treat more carefully." Why?

Because Obama isn't an immortal God-King. At some point he'll be replaced. We've been acting like thugs in that region, attacking anyone we please, waving threats up to and including nukes under everyone's nose for decades. THAT is the norm for our behavior, not Obama's supposed disinterest in bullying or attacking. That is the kind of behavior from us that the Iranian leadership is going to make it's plans on.

You're all for the United States playing "more fairly." You're worried about the bullying we do. What happens when you give a bully freedom from punishment? His behaviors only worsens. That's what you want to offer to Iran.

Iran is a far smaller problem to the region and the world than America is. If it becomes ten times worse it'll still be a tiny problem in comparison.

[Axis Kast]

He did fund terrorists ( people defined as terrorists by our own State Department ) operating inside Iran. And given that he was following PNAC's plans until they ran aground on the Iraqi's disinclination to fall in love with America's mass murder of their countrymen, it's a safe assumption that Bush WOULD have attacked Iran if everything had gone according to plan.

The correct answer is, no, George Bush did not bomb Iran.

Funding groups inside the country, and invading a neighboring country subject to unique circumstances, are not one and the same.

Of course they want nukes; they'd be fools not to. And given that Saddam tried compromise and was rewarded with conquest and execution, it's not like the American version of "compromise" is something the Iranian leadership is likely to be interested in.

Saddam unwisely attempted to retain ambiguity. His objective was to speak from both sides of his mouth at once. It isn't surprising that he failed, particularly given his history.

Because Obama isn't an immortal God-King. At some point he'll be replaced. We've been acting like thugs in that region, attacking anyone we please, waving threats up to and including nukes under everyone's nose for decades. THAT is the norm for our behavior, not Obama's supposed disinterest in bullying or attacking. That is the kind of behavior from us that the Iranian leadership is going to make it's plans on.

It seems that you disapprove of our intervention in 1991.

The norm for our behavior is that we do what we can, when and where we can. That is the norm for everyone's behavior. The United States is different only in the amount of resources it can bring to bear. One day, when the United States is no longer "on top," there will be new bullies. I fully expect your great grandchildren to be there, with bullhorns. If they are not, I will be gravely disappointed. Consider yourself on notice.

Iran is a far smaller problem to the region and the world than America is. If it becomes ten times worse it'll still be a tiny problem in comparison.

Yup. Because I just can't wait for the era of multipolarity, when Chinese and Russian norms of the inviolability of state sovereignty replace American interventionism. What a happy day that will be!

[Lord of the Abyss]

He did fund terrorists ( people defined as terrorists by our own State Department ) operating inside Iran. And given that he was following PNAC's plans until they ran aground on the Iraqi's disinclination to fall in love with America's mass murder of their countrymen, it's a safe assumption that Bush WOULD have attacked Iran if everything had gone according to plan.

The correct answer is, no, George Bush did not bomb Iran.

Funding groups inside the country, and invading a neighboring country subject to unique circumstances, are not one and the same.

Oh, please. That's a weaseling distinction that only matters to apologists like yourself.

Saddam unwisely attempted to retain ambiguity. His objective was to speak from both sides of his mouth at once. It isn't surprising that he failed, particularly given his history.

He tried everything he could; the only result was for us to make a point of invading sooner so no one could dig up more evidence showing we were lying. What makes you think that Iran or anyone else is going to consider us an honest negotiating partner ?

The norm for our behavior is that we do what we can, when and where we can. That is the norm for everyone's behavior.

No, it's not. That's the norm for OUR behavior. This isn't the 19th century. Most countries are run by people bright enough to realize that making all the world fear and distrust and despise you is a bad idea.

Yup. Because I just can't wait for the era of multipolarity, when Chinese and Russian norms of the inviolability of state sovereignty replace American interventionism. What a happy day that will be!

Compared to us ? Probably it will be.

[MKSheppard]

I've put some ideas on the floor

Ideas that won't work.

Position the most mobile interceptors that've proven themselves in position.

You mean ones that can't even hit IRBMs launched from the central region of Iran due to extremly poor launch geometry?

Oh, and to do this thing that won't work, you'll tie up from four to eight DDG-51s or CG-47s continuously. Here's a hint; you need at least three and four ships for each ship on station that you want; it's why the US Navy has 12~ CVNs, so that we can have between three and four carriers at sea at any one time.

Of course, if it does not, I've proposed a solution. Is it ideal? No, I'm not prideful and stupid enough to put forth any plan as ideal, and I frankly doubt any competent person can put forth an ideal plan honestly. Of course, you have to factor in the realities of the world, and not just stomp around and expect nothing bad to ever happen.

You've proposed a plan that can't even work at all and acts like it solves the problem, when it doesn't.

There is already an ideal plan that works; is politically acceptable and would have been deployed -- here's a hint, funding was allocated for building the Polish/Czechslovakian GBI site in the Missile Defense Agency's budget, and the two countries were quite receptive to our plans -- in fact, they fought for it -- but Barry has scuttled that plan, because it would offend the Russians. Heavens!

And this still relies on the idea of Iran actually getting to nukes and IRBMs, stationing them, and being an immediate threat.

Ah, I see you persist with your "kick the can down the road" approach, which is essentially a secular version of praying to the Almighty and hoping that nothing bad happens (TM).

[SirNitram]

Prioritizing issues based on reality rather than freaking out RIGHT NOW OMFG is 'kicking the can down the road', riiiight.

Russia is a player in the region of those bases, which would mean a sane and logical actor factors them into the political reality. But if you're Shep, you apparently bounce up and down and insist we ignore that.

[MKSheppard]

Prioritizing issues based on reality rather than freaking out RIGHT NOW OMFG is 'kicking the can down the road', riiiight.

I see you continue with your delusions.

In Nitram World (TM), a magical, magical place; the US Military has Tiberium powered mobile construction facilities which can build an entire military complex in a few hours.

If work began right now, on the European GBI site; it would take until 2012 -- three years -- before the first interceptor was loaded into it's silo there, and integration with the X-Band Radar we'd build in Europe would take from 2012-2015.

Overall, if we want a credible defense for our NATO allies in Europe against Iranian missiles in place as the Iranians deploy their own missiles; we have to start work right now.

Russia is a player in the region of those bases, which would mean a sane and logical actor factors them into the political reality.

The Russians are deluded, and only lunatics think that the Russian Sphere of influence today extends to Poland and the Czech Republic, where the NMD system will be placed -- they've been NATO members since 12 March 1999, and you know, we're actually obligated by law to defend those countries from threats; unless you're saying that NATO doesn't matter?

EDIT: It's also a nice slap in the face of NATO's European members -- why is it that the United States and Russia get to defend their territories from enemy missile attack via Fort Greely and the Moscow system, but not NATO's European members?

[SirNitram]

That base was taken off the table. I see no reason why it'd be put back on before 2012 at minimum, therefore you could not finish it by the worst case date, therefore a rational person looks at other options.

But you're not rational, as you demonstrate by missing the point that the planned base is scuttled and can't be put back together in time in your paranoia scenario. Instead of obsessing over it, perhaps you could try reality for a bit and consider other options. Ones not already removed from play by people with more intel and authority than a frothing conservative on a webboard.