Benazir Bhutto is dead

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Right, I remember the tens of thousands of people dying during the last anthrax attack/distribution - oh, wait, it didn't happen like that.

I'm not saying you couldn't have mass casualties on a scale of millions, but the anthrax letters, which did distribute anthrax to a lot of people beyond just those addressed, resulted in very few deaths compared to people exposed.

In many ways, we're discussing middle-to-worse case scenarios. Of course, planning in these instances shouldn't be done using best case, but the gap between theory/speculation and reality is still there.

Anthrax is basically a chemical weapon, and if you filled an envelop with powdered chlorine you wouldn't kill many people, either. The delivery system was simply crap.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This kind of speculation would be a lot more compelling if you had concrete evidence of Islamic leaders standing up in front of enemy machine-guns and saying "fire away, Allah will protect me". It seems to me that even the militant nutjobs understand that there are certain practical issues to war, and until I see some compelling evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to change this assessment.

Even the famous dumb-shit line about angels shooting down nuclear missiles to protect Mecca is not enough to justify this kind of speculation. For one thing, I suspect these Muslims are quite aware that they are living in Pakistan, not Mecca. For another, it's one thing to spout this kind of stupid bullshit; it's another to trust your life to it. Christians say a lot of stupid shit about God "extending special protection to America", yet when push comes to shove, even the most rabid fundie seems to understand that the American armed forces need guns, not just Bibles.

One of the reasons for the effectiveness of enemy asymmetrical warfare tactics is the enemy's recognition of their own limitations, and development of a way to continue warfare despite those limitations. This flies in the face of the notion that they will just boldly stumble forward under the assumption that Allah will bring them victory.

Arab armies have traditionally always fought with asymmetrical forms of warfare, so I don't think they necessarily do it as anything more than a finely refined habit. The Quran is filled with instructions on raids, not large scale battles.

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists. The circumstances of the deaths so far in the war are largely obscure, and often to a certain extent classified by our authorities; we cannot speak to the participants on that side and ask them, explicitly, their views. This is part of the problem, however; the Indians would have to make their decision in the absence of any clear evidence.

[Duckie]

Arab armies have traditionally always fought with asymmetrical forms of warfare, so I don't think they necessarily do it as anything more than a finely refined habit. The Quran is filled with instructions on raids, not large scale battles.

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists. The circumstances of the deaths so far in the war are largely obscure, and often to a certain extent classified by our authorities; we cannot speak to the participants on that side and ask them, explicitly, their views. This is part of the problem, however; the Indians would have to make their decision in the absence of any clear evidence.

I think what you're trying to say is that they may be geniuses of Realpolitik or even scheming masterminds who don't believe a word of what's being said, but we have no clue if that's true so India might assume the worst that they're all a bunch of loons with no understanding of nuclear deterrance?

That's not the best way to articulate it, but I think you'll understand my question.

[Ryan Thunder]

no, more like the global climate changes resulting from such an exchange,

Minor changes at most, it could only help slow global warming (By an iota), while providing lovely sunsets. Setting of tones of nukes to slow global warming has been raised a sa serious proposition, and nuclear winter is a brain-bug. (Alass for Sagan's single weakness).

Erm, how? By putting up dust clouds? Wouldn't this merely produce an utterly catastrophic drought in warmer regions?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

no, more like the global climate changes resulting from such an exchange,

Minor changes at most, it could only help slow global warming (By an iota), while providing lovely sunsets. Setting of tones of nukes to slow global warming has been raised a sa serious proposition, and nuclear winter is a brain-bug. (Alass for Sagan's single weakness).

Erm, how? By putting up dust clouds? Wouldn't this merely produce an utterly catastrophic drought in warmer regions?

It's not the dust clothes, it's the fact that the events would put atomized particulate matter into the upper atmosphere, forming a shield against solar radiation.

[MKSheppard]

Bhutto wanted BLACKWATER for protection but Mushie said no to Foreign PMCs operating in Pakland

[Balrog]

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, Hitler wasn't exactly right in the head, and there were quite a few in the Japanese high command that wanted the war to continue even after the nuclear bombings (and the threat of more) so the country could die with honor; even attempted a coup to keep the Emperor's surrender recording from getting out.

There isn't a facet of human civilization that isn't at risk from the stupid, ignorant or simple, even those of great power IMO.

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists.

You still haven't established this to be the case. The attitude may theoretically exist. I'm not even sure about that; what I've read of the Koran indicates that it had a surprisingly practical set of teachings about how to conduct warfare. At no point does it suggest to its adherents that they can ignore the tactics and strategies of war and achieve victory solely by praying to Allah. I seem to recall even seeing one passage about how the rules on daily prayer can be suspended if you're busy retreating from the enemy.

[Ryan Thunder]

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists.

You still haven't established this to be the case. The attitude may theoretically exist. I'm not even sure about that; what I've read of the Koran indicates that it had a surprisingly practical set of teachings about how to conduct warfare. At no point does it suggest to its adherents that they can ignore the tactics and strategies of war and achieve victory solely by praying to Allah. I seem to recall even seeing one passage about how the rules on daily prayer can be suspended if you're busy retreating from the enemy.

Well remember that Rapture idea, Mike? I don't see that in the Bible anywhere...

You're assuming that these people are right on track with their religion, but it's quite possible that their view is rather distorted. Much like that of, say, the KKK.

[Darth Wong]

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists.

You still haven't established this to be the case. The attitude may theoretically exist. I'm not even sure about that; what I've read of the Koran indicates that it had a surprisingly practical set of teachings about how to conduct warfare. At no point does it suggest to its adherents that they can ignore the tactics and strategies of war and achieve victory solely by praying to Allah. I seem to recall even seeing one passage about how the rules on daily prayer can be suspended if you're busy retreating from the enemy.

Well remember that Rapture idea, Mike? I don't see that in the Bible anywhere...

You're assuming that these people are right on track with their religion, but it's quite possible that their view is rather distorted. Much like that of, say, the KKK.

Even the craziest Rapture lunatic doesn't think he can stand there and absorb bullets while God protects him. And I've never seen any indication that even the most rabid Taliban-esque Muslim lunatics think that either. Until I see such evidence, I see no reason to accept the proposition that they feel this way, no matter how many times it is repeated.

[SirNitram]

Well remember that Rapture idea, Mike? I don't see that in the Bible anywhere...

Book Of Revelations, 20, the First Ressurection. 1000 years of the Faithful before everyone is judged by works alone.

And I'm a Deist.

[SirNitram]

Ghetto Edit: And 1st Thessalonians, 4:17:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Rapture exactly as stated.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Arab armies have traditionally always fought with asymmetrical forms of warfare, so I don't think they necessarily do it as anything more than a finely refined habit. The Quran is filled with instructions on raids, not large scale battles.

Anyway, the pertinent concern is simply that the attitude exists. The circumstances of the deaths so far in the war are largely obscure, and often to a certain extent classified by our authorities; we cannot speak to the participants on that side and ask them, explicitly, their views. This is part of the problem, however; the Indians would have to make their decision in the absence of any clear evidence.

Didn't Saladin and the previous Arab/Kurdish rulers actually field armies? Their tactics aren't exactly new to that region, especially Parthia provided much of the inspiration required.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Well remember that Rapture idea, Mike? I don't see that in the Bible anywhere...

Book Of Revelations, 20, the First Ressurection. 1000 years of the Faithful before everyone is judged by works alone.

And I'm a Deist.

That's not the rapture for most of the crazies (who're dispensationalists). There's the rapture, then there's the reign of the Beast and the False Prophet, then there is the second coming and the Armageddon, then a 1000 years on Earth with the faithful, then Lucifer returns for a time before being again defeated and the final judgment.

[SirNitram]

Well remember that Rapture idea, Mike? I don't see that in the Bible anywhere...

Book Of Revelations, 20, the First Ressurection. 1000 years of the Faithful before everyone is judged by works alone.

And I'm a Deist.

That's not the rapture for most of the crazies (who're dispensationalists). There's the rapture, then there's the reign of the Beast and the False Prophet, then there is the second coming and the Armageddon, then a 1000 years on Earth with the faithful, then Lucifer returns for a time before being again defeated and the final judgment.

Yea, that's in Thessalonians, which I found after the first post. Complete with the 'bodily lifted into the air' nonsense.

I'm aware they take creative liberties with it, but the idea is in there.. Which is what was asked.

[Ryan Thunder]

Ghetto Edit: And 1st Thessalonians, 4:17:

Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

Rapture exactly as stated.

Damn... Never did read Thessalonians...

Conceded.

[Adrian Laguna]

Even the craziest Rapture lunatic doesn't think he can stand there and absorb bullets while God protects him. And I've never seen any indication that even the most rabid Taliban-esque Muslim lunatics think that either. Until I see such evidence, I see no reason to accept the proposition that they feel this way, no matter how many times it is repeated.

There is still the issue of acceptable losses. It is possible to take control of Pakistan, launch all its nukes, and survive the experience. They just have to disperse into the countryside between the part where the order to launch is given and the part where the counter-strike arrives. They'll lose the entirety of Pakistan, but that might be acceptable if they manage to also destroy the majority of the US Army's offensive capabilities, which they could do since it's conveniently in range of Pakistan's missiles.

Muslim extremists did, after all, already used one country to stage an attack on the United States and where unfazed by the prospect of losing it to the subsequent American response. Regardless of whether this was because they considered it an acceptable loss or thought Allah would protect them, they appear to still be rather unfazed by the fact that they did lose it. They also continue to fight despite suffering far more casualties than they inflict. What's dangerous about them is not that the leadership is necessarily suicidal, there's more places they can hide in than places we could nuke, so whether they are or not is actually irrelevant, but rather that the rank and file is undeniably so.

[Darth Wong]

Even the craziest Rapture lunatic doesn't think he can stand there and absorb bullets while God protects him. And I've never seen any indication that even the most rabid Taliban-esque Muslim lunatics think that either. Until I see such evidence, I see no reason to accept the proposition that they feel this way, no matter how many times it is repeated.

There is still the issue of acceptable losses. It is possible to take control of Pakistan, launch all its nukes, and survive the experience. They just have to disperse into the countryside between the part where the order to launch is given and the part where the counter-strike arrives. They'll lose the entirety of Pakistan, but that might be acceptable if they manage to also destroy the majority of the US Army's offensive capabilities, which they could do since it's conveniently in range of Pakistan's missiles.

Muslim extremists did, after all, already used one country to stage an attack on the United States and where unfazed by the prospect of losing it to the subsequent American response. Regardless of whether this was because they considered it an acceptable loss or thought Allah would protect them, they appear to still be rather unfazed by the fact that they did lose it. They also continue to fight despite suffering far more casualties than they inflict. What's dangerous about them is not that the leadership is necessarily suicidal, there's more places they can hide in than places we could nuke, so whether they are or not is actually irrelevant, but rather that the rank and file is undeniably so.

They knew as well as we did that the Americans would not nuke anybody in retaliation for a single terrorist attack. And I hate to break it to you but news of the Taliban's death in Afghanistan has been greatly exaggerated.

[Adrian Laguna]

They knew as well as we did that the Americans would not nuke anybody in retaliation for a single terrorist attack.

But of course. Just because they are willing to lose the majority of a country to invasion, which they could theoretically win back, doesn't necessarily mean the would be willing to lose a country to canned firebombings. There is, however, a progression between one and the other, the question is where do our friendly neighborhood Islamist nutcases draw the line. Cripling the US's ground military for a considerable period might very well be worth the long term loss of Pakistan and permanent loss of its population, especially given that there is no other possible way to accomplish that, other than praying Allah will will the American defense budget into non-existance.

And I hate to break it to you but news of the Taliban's death in Afghanistan has been greatly exaggerated.

Uh, that's part of my point. They were able to survive by dispersing into the countryside. They would be able to survive even a full nuclear retaliation by doing the same. Wiping out a country's industrial and military capacity is hard enough as it is, and requires the use of hundreds of devices, cleaning out the countryside is almost impossible.


I do not think it wise to discount the distinct possibility that the hardcore Islamic faction in Pakistan will behave in a manner that is utterly irrational to us. Mind, neither do I think it it wise to dismiss their amenability to reason. These things need to be approached in a manner that simultaneously supposes both a reasonable level of rationality and a utter lack of it on the fanatic's part.

It is not as if there is no historical precedence for the latter. For example, Imperial Japan came dammed close to not surrendering, despite the fact that they were very much defeated. A hardline faction attempted a coup against the Emperor when they learned he was going to announce a surrender. They wanted Japan to continue fighting and essentially commit national suicide. Why? Because they figured that if they inflicted enough losses on the US Army, basically by throwing wave after wave of their civilians at them, they'd get a favourable peace. These people were that far gone, and they almost got their way if not for a number of officers who were loyal to the Emperor and/or could see the writing on the wall. I seriously doubt hardcore Muslims are any less the fanatics that the hardline faction in the Imperial Japanese Military was.

[Darth Wong]

They knew as well as we did that the Americans would not nuke anybody in retaliation for a single terrorist attack.

But of course. Just because they are willing to lose the majority of a country to invasion, which they could theoretically win back, doesn't necessarily mean the would be willing to lose a country to canned firebombings. There is, however, a progression between one and the other, the question is where do our friendly neighborhood Islamist nutcases draw the line. Cripling the US's ground military for a considerable period might very well be worth the long term loss of Pakistan and permanent loss of its population, especially given that there is no other possible way to accomplish that, other than praying Allah will will the American defense budget into non-existance.

What are you, fucking retarded? Afghanistan is still Muslim. Pakistan is destabilizing next door. The Americans are slowly bleeding money and lives while desperately trying to pump money into Afghanistan's worthless economy. All around the world, Muslims are radicalizing and becoming even angrier with the West than they were before. Oh yeah, they've "lost the country" ... it's all worked out horribly for Al-Quaeda, hasn't it?

What bullshit neo-con fantasy world do you live in, retard? Any imbecile who tries to use 9/11 as proof that Muslim extremists don't know what they're doing or can't plan strategy is the monkey king of idiots. Their movement has benefited tremendously since 9/11. You think they don't know what they're doing because you're too fucking stupid to understand what they're trying to accomplish. You think they're trying to win a set-piece WW1 type of war; they're not. It's morons like you who have gotten the US into the position it's in, because of your inability to understand how this kind of war works.

[Adrian Laguna]

What are you, fucking retarded?

Perhaps, see below.

Any imbecile who tries to use 9/11 as proof that Muslim extremists don't know what they're doing or can't plan strategy is the monkey king of idiots.

I believe the Muslims extrements can plan strategy.

[Darth Wong]

What are you, fucking retarded?

Perhaps, see below.

Any imbecile who tries to use 9/11 as proof that Muslim extremists don't know what they're doing or can't plan strategy is the monkey king of idiots.

I believe the Muslims extrements can plan strategy.

Then why the fuck are you trying to argue that 9/11 was such a bad decision that it supports the notion that Muslim extremists are too irrational to avoid self-defeating strategies?

[Adrian Laguna]

Then why the fuck are you trying to argue that 9/11 was such a bad decision that it supports the notion that Muslim extremists are too irrational to avoid self-defeating strategies?

Apparently because I suck at arguing, since that wasn't what I was trying to say.

[Adrian Laguna]

what I was trying to say

I started by mentioning acceptable losses. That basically means what you are willing to sacrifice in order to get what you want. This a key part of any military planning, you need to be willing to sacrifice something, else you will make no gains. Often the difference between a good strategy and a bad one lies on properly calculating the gains and the sacrifices, and deciding whether the first justifies the second.

I then went on to say that the damage inflicted on the US armed forces by the deployment of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal might be worse the loss of the entire nation of Pakistan. Now consider, I don't believe the Muslim extremist are stupid, but I do believe they would use atomics despite the response in kind and 10 times stronger. The conclusion should be obvious, I thought it was a good strategy. It occurred to me later that with thinking like that, 1945 Hitler would have made me a Field Marshall. After I was done laughing my ass off, I saw my point in another light. That is why I responded to your accusation of mental retardation on my part with acknowledgment of the possibility.

[Sarevok]

America can raise new army divisions to replace annihalated ones. In no way does destruction of American forces in Iraq bring victory for islamists. Rather it could spark off the biggest armament rebuilding race since 1930s as US prepares to steam roll the entire middle east. So Islamists lose the strongest muslim nation in exchange for a 150K soldiers and an extremely furious US ready to stamp out whatever chance muslim nations had to become strong.

How is this a good exchange Adrian ?