12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Glorfindel709]

@Skadi - It was a John Oliver joke I personally agree that China is one of the more reasonable powers in regards to "who's going to destroy us"



I also agree that the unstable regimes holding Nukes is the most dangerous thing facing us, especially Pakistan.



Political Stability is the most important thing, but too often countries cannot work with each other due to their different viewpoints buttonholing debate and discussion.



@Paratrooper - I consider a large scale war to be countries versus countries. For example, if the Revolutionary Guard from Iran had turned up in Iraq to help fight our Coalition off, that would be the beginnings of a large scale war. A coalition for a dozen nations invading one country however is more of a international cluster****

[Glorfindel709]

And Yes Paratrooper, the colonies that were controlled by Great Britain were largely populated by German migrants. It was due to the campaign on Continental Europe to get more people to travel to the New World, many German migrants were promised good working and landholding opportunities in return for moving to the Colonies

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

I think you're talking about two different things, class envy and culture. Although I favor capitalism, no system is without drawbacks, and capitalism breads materialism and a class-based social environment. Not only do people generally want to have more money and be more successful, they also want the appearance of being so.

I don't think the American cononies were necessarily trying to immitate their British counterparts. I just think some of the British culture (as in taste in music, art, architecture, etc.) still remained. The colonies were largely comprised of migrants from Great Brittain, and other places.

The ethnicity of the colonists isn't my point. My point was that the British were, in the 19th century, the richest, most technologically advanced empire in the world, and we did emulate them in many ways, several of which still linger today. When you look at 19th century America, we were looking to the British alot for many inventions and innovations. Even our elites back then still considered sending one's children to be educated in Europe, mainly France and Britain, because their culture and schools were considered superior to our own.

I'm talking about post revolution America, by the way, not when we were a British colony.

Sure, Capitalism has its drawbacks, but as a spreader of culture from the 19th century on, no other system of economics has come close.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Chemical and biological weapons are not in the cards for the US to use, although nuclear certainly is. And even then that would only be used in retaliation if China used theirs.

I agree we wouldn't use them except as measures of retaliation. Though if we were pushed into a corner tightly enough, I think any political or moral objections to chem and bio would go out the window. I personally do not believe such weapons have been completely destroyed, that we probably still have some stock piles stashed away. We had spent too much time, money, and man power in researching and developing them to completely get rid of them. Once Pandora's box is open, there's no shutting it.

But that was what I was basically saying. China, Russia, and the US, for all their posturing, know exactly what's at stake, and have too much to lose, to be casually lobbing nukes at one another. I do not believe the Chinese are any less aware of this, and despite having a regime that we find distateful, are not stupid. They know they would be completely wiped out along with us, and the Chinese aren't suicidal.

it's the less stable, more irrationally driven regimes I worry about. They who think they have nothing to lose, and wouldn't care who they take down with them. Those are the ones I worry about.


@Glorfindel: Yeah, you will always have countries who refuse to cooperate with one another, and prefer to try and annihlate one another. That's where pressure and threats from neighbors, as well as the international community, comes into play. But it must be pressure with substance, not empty promises or threats. Which sadly, currently, everyone seems to favor.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

@Paratrooper - I consider a large scale war to be countries versus countries. For example, if the Revolutionary Guard from Iran had turned up in Iraq to help fight our Coalition off, that would be the beginnings of a large scale war. A coalition for a dozen nations invading one country however is more of a international cluster****

Two points to make here. One, Iranian forces were sticking their nose it, although on a relatively small scale. They continue doing so to this day, as well are supplying EFP's and other weapons.

Besides the US, every other country only supplied enough troops and equipment that they could barely be considered tokens, save maybe the UK. And I wouldn't say the initial invasion was a cluster **** at all. Iraq's entire military defeated, their government dismantled, and their country's capital was taken over in three weeks.

The cluster ***** happened afterward. Disbanding Iraq's military and firing all of their Generals, only to try to build a new one from scratch (and) install a brand new government.... these are not what militaries are designed to do. Not to mention doing so when we created a power vacuum in the most volatile region in the world.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Chemical and biological weapons are not in the cards for the US to use, although nuclear certainly is. And even then that would only be used in retaliation if China used theirs.

I agree we wouldn't use them except as measures of retaliation. Though if we were pushed into a corner tightly enough, I think any political or moral objections to chem and bio would go out the window. I personally do not believe such weapons have been completely destroyed, that we probably still have some stock piles stashed away. We had spent too much time, money, and man power in researching and developing them to completely get rid of them. Once Pandora's box is open, there's no shutting it.

But that was what I was basically saying. China, Russia, and the US, for all their posturing, know exactly what's at stake, and have too much to lose, to be casually lobbing nukes at one another. I do not believe the Chinese are any less aware of this, and despite having a regime that we find distateful, are not stupid. They know they would be completely wiped out along with us, and the Chinese aren't suicidal.

it's the less stable, more irrationally driven regimes I worry about. They who think they have nothing to lose, and wouldn't care who they take down with them. Those are the ones I worry about.


@Glorfindel: Yeah, you will always have countries who refuse to cooperate with one another, and prefer to try and annihlate one another. That's where pressure and threats from neighbors, as well as the international community, comes into play. But it must be pressure with substance, not empty promises or threats. Which sadly, currently, everyone seems to favor.

It's not just that there's no political will to use them. We don't even stock chemical and biological agents except for training to counter them. Such an example would be every 74D (Chemical Operations Specialist) must enter a VX gas chamber in full MOPP gear to build confidence in their equipment. In fact, I don't even think they're practical. If we target an area with chem or bio, presumably at some point we need to occupy it. We'd be bogging ourselves down with a decon nightmare, and it works just as well (or better) to just blow the target up.

Modifié par USArmyParatrooper, 26 février 2011 - 05:55 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Two points to make here. One, Iranian forces were sticking their nose it, although on a relatively small scale. They continue doing so to this day, as well are supplying EFP's and other weapons.

Besides the US, every other country only supplied enough troops and equipment that they could barely be considered tokens, save maybe the UK. And I wouldn't say the initial invasion was a cluster **** at all. Iraq's entire military defeated, their government dismantled, and their country's capital was taken over in three weeks.

The cluster ***** happened afterward. Disbanding Iraq's military and firing all of their Generals, only to try to build a new one from scratch (and) install a brand new government.... these are not what militaries are designed to do. Not to mention doing so when we created a power vacuum in the most volatile region in the world.

 

Generally, I agree here. One of the biggest problems in the last 20 years has been the US govornment attempting to apply the military to tasks it is not designed for, one of the reasons I myself left.

That was our problem there, and is also our problem in Afghanistan. Militaries need clear, defined, and realistic objectives to succeed. We had none of the above. And politically, those who engineered the whole thing really had no clue what they were getting into, or really didn't care, because they were focused on short term objectives like oil.

The invasion was quick, clean, and well executed, because that's what armies are supposed to do. The occupation has been the opposite, because well, our leaders must have gotten stone and cut class during World History 101. And obviously haven't been paying attention to recent history, otherwise, they would have dealt with Iraq's Shia majority differently, given the looming threat Iran posed. We actually gave Iran a nice big present wrapped with a pretty bow when we failed to plan here.

regarding chem and bio weapons: Nukes also make a place unoccupiable, yet we would use them. I think if necessity and survival dictated, we'd use bio and chem as well.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

regarding chem and bio weapons: Nukes also make a place unoccupiable, yet we would use them. I think if necessity and survival dictated, we'd use bio and chem as well.

You're missing two important points when it comes to chem and bio. We currently have nuclear missiles prepped and ready and we regularly do battle drills where we simulate launching them, not so with chem and bio. Nuclear arsenal has massive destructive capabilities on such a grand scale they can't be duplicated with conventional weapons. This is not so with chemical and bio. We can just as easily and (and arguably more effectively) bomb a target area with conventional weapons to destroy enemy troops, equipment and infrastructure. The only upside to chem and bio is you can kill large numbers of enemy troops and leave infrastructure intact; however, if your wish is to use them you then have to deal with deconing the entire target area, and then some. This is extremely difficult and in some cases it would be impossible, especially with persistent agents like VX.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

You're missing two important points when it comes to chem and bio. We currently have nuclear missiles prepped and ready and we regularly do battle drills where we simulate launching them, not so with chem and bio. Nuclear arsenal has massive destructive capabilities on such a grand scale they can't be duplicated with conventional weapons. This is not so with chemical and bio. We can just as easily and (and arguably more effectively) bomb a target area with conventional weapons to destroy enemy troops, equipment and infrastructure. The only upside to chem and bio is you can kill large numbers of enemy troops and leave infrastructure intact; however, if your wish is to use them you then have to deal with deconing the entire target area, and then some. This is extremely difficult and in some cases it would be impossible, especially with persistent agents like VX.

Depends on the target, and agent used, as well as objective. Not all chemical agents are that persistant that would require intensive decontamination. Though in the case of biological agents, its alot harder and much more risky.

An example of use I am implying: Let's say the enemy has an important airbase you need, and you need it yesterday, because you don't have time to build your own airfield and tower, and are planning to launch a strike on them really quiclkly. You need the airstrips, control tower, command post, and electronics, maybe even a few planes, intact. What you don't need are the enemy troops there.

You drop sh*tloads of nerve gas or whatever agent you choose on the area, everyone is dead within hours. You then send in your team to take the place, all wearing NBC suits (not the ones we got issued, but those super duper spacesuit looking ones), and they can operate all of the equipment necessary, because it will all be in working order. And get some nice enemy gear in the bargain as well. People operating in the area would have to stay suited up, and there would have to be decontamination sooner or later, but the point is, you can take all the gear and infrastructure with little difficulty because most, if not all, opposition would be dead.

But we do not have anything that can eliminate a population of enemy units or civilians and leave the infrastructure and equipment intact. Sure, we don't have chem or bio warheads pointed anywhere or ready to launch at a moments notice like we do nukes. But it is something that could be mobilized relatively quickly if we needed to.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

You're missing two important points when it comes to chem and bio. We currently have nuclear missiles prepped and ready and we regularly do battle drills where we simulate launching them, not so with chem and bio. Nuclear arsenal has massive destructive capabilities on such a grand scale they can't be duplicated with conventional weapons. This is not so with chemical and bio. We can just as easily and (and arguably more effectively) bomb a target area with conventional weapons to destroy enemy troops, equipment and infrastructure. The only upside to chem and bio is you can kill large numbers of enemy troops and leave infrastructure intact; however, if your wish is to use them you then have to deal with deconing the entire target area, and then some. This is extremely difficult and in some cases it would be impossible, especially with persistent agents like VX.

Depends on the target, and agent used, as well as objective. Not all chemical agents are that persistant that would require intensive decontamination. Though in the case of biological agents, its alot harder and much more risky.

An example of use I am implying: Let's say the enemy has an important airbase you need, and you need it yesterday, because you don't have time to build your own airfield and tower, and are planning to launch a strike on them really quiclkly. You need the airstrips, control tower, command post, and electronics, maybe even a few planes, intact. What you don't need are the enemy troops there.

You drop sh*tloads of nerve gas or whatever agent you choose on the area, everyone is dead within hours. You then send in your team to take the place, all wearing NBC suits (not the ones we got issued, but those super duper spacesuit looking ones), and they can operate all of the equipment necessary, because it will all be in working order. And get some nice enemy gear in the bargain as well. People operating in the area would have to stay suited up, and there would have to be decontamination sooner or later, but the point is, you can take all the gear and infrastructure with little difficulty because most, if not all, opposition would be dead.

But we do not have anything that can eliminate a population of enemy units or civilians and leave the infrastructure and equipment intact. Sure, we don't have chem or bio warheads pointed anywhere or ready to launch at a moments notice like we do nukes. But it is something that could be mobilized relatively quickly if we needed to.

Your scenario isn't realistic and practical from an operational standpoint, and for large airbases (like BIAP) the amount of chemical agents you would need would be insane. We're not equipped for sustained military operation in MOPP gear, in fact, the gear that we have isn't made for that. It's meant to protect you through the fight so you can go immediately to a decon area. And if those 'space suits' exist within the military I've never seen one.

There hypothetically could be a very specific circumstance where chemical weapons would come in handy. But chemical and bio are far from being a hail marry pass if you're losing a war. On the whole they are impractical and we're not even equipped with those capabilities at the ready. The military would have to reinstate offensive chem/bio capabilities and train and equip units to use them. As it stands right now there's not even an MOS that deals with chem/bio from an offensive standpoint, only defensive.

[Glorfindel709]

How do you think the Blight would have gone if Loghain had biological weapons?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wouldn't the darkspawn be immune to it?

I think the taint can be weaponised though.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Your scenario isn't realistic and practical from an operational standpoint, and for large airbases (like BIAP) the amount of chemical agents you would need would be insane. We're not equipped for sustained military operation in MOPP gear, in fact, the gear that we have isn't made for that. It's meant to protect you through the fight so you can go immediately to a decon area. And if those 'space suits' exist within the military I've never seen one.

There hypothetically could be a very specific circumstance where chemical weapons would come in handy. But chemical and bio are far from being a hail marry pass if you're losing a war. On the whole they are impractical and we're not even equipped with those capabilities at the ready. The military would have to reinstate offensive chem/bio capabilities and train and equip units to use them. As it stands right now there's not even an MOS that deals with chem/bio from an offensive standpoint, only defensive.

The scenario itself, no, but I was using a fictional, generalized example, that when one needs something intact but its owners dead or gone, for whatever reason, chemical and bio weapons are the only things tailored to that purpose. And the DoD knows this.

We continue to research new types of Bio/chemical weapons in places like Ft, Detrick and Redstone Arsenal. Perhaps the agents we have in any amount, at this point, might not be practical for our current objectives or scenarios, but that doesn't mean they aren't researching new and improved, more efficient ways to make the enemy die choking on his freshly vomited up liver.

My point being that, the Pentagon does consider chemical and biological weapons a potantial and viable tool, otherwise, it would not be researching new ones.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Wouldn't the darkspawn be immune to it?
I think the taint can be weaponised though.

They could catapult tainted corpses on their enemies. Worked for the Turks.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

How do you think the Blight would have gone if Loghain had biological weapons?

GLORIOUS!

[USArmyParatrooper]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

The scenario itself, no, but I was using a fictional, generalized example, that when one needs something intact but its owners dead or gone, for whatever reason, chemical and bio weapons are the only things tailored to that purpose. And the DoD knows this.

We continue to research new types of Bio/chemical weapons in places like Ft, Detrick and Redstone Arsenal. Perhaps the agents we have in any amount, at this point, might not be practical for our current objectives or scenarios, but that doesn't mean they aren't researching new and improved, more efficient ways to make the enemy die choking on his freshly vomited up liver.

My point being that, the Pentagon does consider chemical and biological weapons a potantial and viable tool, otherwise, it would not be researching new ones.

The only contention I have is with the notion that the US is likely to use them if fighting another superpower. The US military has redacted all offensive capabilities with chemical and bio. Mind you, it wouldn't take much to reinstate it. But that's not just something you can do on the fly, and it's certainly not a game changer even if you did.

We wouldn't have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention if they were needed. This is why the US and South Korea has't signed the Ottawa treaty, because landmines are still in place in the DMZ in Korea, and it would require them to eventually remove them.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Glorfindel709 wrote...

How do you think the Blight would have gone if Loghain had biological weapons?

And if he didn't flee?

 One Abrams tank could have taken out the whole horde. Even if they run out of ammo those things can drive like 60 mph and weigh almost 70 tons.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

The only contention I have is with the notion that the US is likely to use them if fighting another superpower. The US military has redacted all offensive capabilities with chemical and bio. Mind you, it wouldn't take much to reinstate it. But that's not just something you can do on the fly, and it's certainly not a game changer even if you did.

We wouldn't have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention if they were needed. This is why the US and South Korea has't signed the Ottawa treaty, because landmines are still in place in the DMZ in Korea, and it would require them to eventually remove them.

When we signed the Chemical Convention, no, there was no forseeable use of chemical/biological weapons. They were considered redundant, we were in the Cold War, and the most likely outcome there would be a full scale ICBM exchange between the US and Soviet Union.

But times and strategic situations and goals change. Our main threat is no longer full scale nuclear wipe out with the Soviets. I'm sure if we had to, we'd toss the Conventions aside and use whatever means necessary to survive and retaliate. Chemical weapons as we know them now might be cumbersome to our current strategic needs, but new ones are constantly being researched. In the future, some sort of new and improved type of nerve gas or other chemical weapon might be discovered that works and is delivered different from ones we know now, and might become part of our arsenal.

I'm just saying that there is little really that we wouldn't end up doing if necessary, and the military use of Chem/Bio warfare remains of interest to the boys in the Pentagon.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Glorfindel709 wrote...

How do you think the Blight would have gone if Loghain had biological weapons?

And if he didn't flee?

 One Abrams tank could have taken out the whole horde. Even if they run out of ammo those things can drive like 60 mph and weigh almost 70 tons.

Now there's an idea......fight battles bu crushing your enemies.....literally. Though I think the AD would be a bit of a problem.

[USArmyParatrooper]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In the future, some sort of new and improved type of nerve gas or other chemical weapon might be discovered that works and is delivered different from ones we know now, and might become part of our arsenal.

I'm just saying that there is little really that we wouldn't end up doing if necessary, and the military use of Chem/Bio warfare remains of interest to the boys in the Pentagon.

This I fully agree with, though I doubt it would end up being a nerve agent. More likely would be something non-lethal that incapacitates, which as of late has been more and more of interest.

[Glorfindel709]

If the Archdemon shows up just send out the Apache Longbows and watch that dragon get torn to pieces. Take out it's wings and legs, and then just have a Grey Warden run up as it crashes and stab it in the head.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

USArmyParatrooper wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...
In the future, some sort of new and improved type of nerve gas or other chemical weapon might be discovered that works and is delivered different from ones we know now, and might become part of our arsenal.

I'm just saying that there is little really that we wouldn't end up doing if necessary, and the military use of Chem/Bio warfare remains of interest to the boys in the Pentagon.

This I fully agree with, though I doubt it would end up being a nerve agent. More likely would be something non-lethal that incapacitates, which as of late has been more and more of interest.

They have been researching weird energy weapons, like ones that use EMPs or microwaves to injure or incapacitate people via disruptions to the nervous system, or something like that. Supposedly, some of it looked into for reasons of crowd control, like protests gone bad. They are pretty close to actually developing workable prototypes. But if they are looking into that for energy, I'm sure they are looking into chemicals that have similar effects. Tear gas only goes so far.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
It is VERY easy for you to condem those that conquered "more then they should have" but try living in a nation whose very existence has been threatened by other powers many times in history because we never bothered to conquer anyone ( and the few leaders who tried in our history were betrayed in their own country ).

So you just envy the empires, rather than condemn them.  Whatever dude.  Talk about my attitude being hypocritical.

[Costin_Razvan]

So you just envy the empires, rather than condemn them. Whatever dude. Talk about my attitude being hypocritical.

Envy? You fail to understand the point: I like the whole concept of an Empire, what I hate is that my nation ( despite having the opportunity ) remained a backwater nation who now falls to it's knees in politics because of our non-expansionist policy over the centuries and as a result living conditions here have been and are still poor.

  One Abrams tank could have taken out the whole horde. Even if they run out of ammo those things can drive like 60 mph and weigh almost 70 tons.  

Forget the tank lol.

Put an MG on the bridge of Ostagar and massacre the entire horde.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 26 février 2011 - 09:59 .

[Joy Divison]

Just to throw a monkey in the wrench with those "rogue state" and "mad-dictator" theories of weapons of mass destruction: the only state to wage atomic warfare was the very stable and democratic United States when it had all but militarily won the war it was waging. This same entity has consistently and adamantly maintained that atomic warfare was an integral and legitimate part of its military doctrine...even it its attempt to convince the UN of the case for an Iraq invasion in 2003, the US refused to preclude their use in certain circumstances.

And Hitler had chemical weapons he didn't use even after issuing a Nero-order. Stalin didn't use them either.

Costin: I can appreciate your desire not to have the developers speak (via Hawke) for you.

Also correct me if I am wrong, the people who lived in what in now Romania never really had the opportunity to engage in empire building. With the Romans, Huns, Bulgars, German crusaders, Mongols, Turks, Poles, and Russians roaming around the mouth of the Danube for the past 2000 years or so it would have proven rather difficult I would imagine...

Modifié par Joy Divison, 26 février 2011 - 10:30 .