|
|
Post by Swampy on Nov 19, 2012 2:29:02 GMT -5
I would support it, just as I supported the air campaign against Kaddafi's Libya. My concern, however, is if it would allow the Islamic radicals to come into power.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Nov 19, 2012 5:21:49 GMT -5
I consider the idea of a no-fly zone good; such zones have been effective before.
I would not fear that it would lead to Muslim fanatics to come to power. That political "change" depends on other factors, such as the effectiveness of Fundamentalist Islam agitation and fanatic propaganda -- often with Western technology. Cassette recorders in Ayatollah Khomeini's time; SMS messages in the Arab Spring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2012 8:45:55 GMT -5
You're talking about a part of the world that has never been friendly including a religion that is the same. It makes no difference if we support with a no fly zone or not. They will still hate us. Turn the region into glass!
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Nov 19, 2012 11:29:14 GMT -5
You're talking about a part of the world that has never been friendly including a religion that is the same. It makes no difference if we support with a no fly zone or not. They will still hate us. Turn the region into glass! Vitrifying the Arab countries would cause a great deal of nuclear fallout on Continental Europe -- they would react negatively. How much that would matter, I cannot here estimate......... Either glassifying Arabs, or contaminating Europe, I mean..... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2012 12:19:32 GMT -5
First off, I hope you realize that my wish is just that - a wish. Secondly, I doubt that even we have the capability to literally turn to glass a portion of the earth that large. Thirdly, I suspect we are smart enough to not even consider such an act at least partly because of any residual byproducts of nuclear waste - such as you mentioned - to so called "friends. Fourthly, IF such an act was possible, a huge portion of the earth would be unusable for generations to come. Not necessarily a bad thing when considering the physical location, but still...
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Nov 19, 2012 12:38:02 GMT -5
Denny,
The trouble with nukes in the ME is that the gunk will head east, and in due course reach America.
Not a huge problem with a couple going off in Japan, but a dozen or more would accumulate the effect and you would have a very unhappy India, China and so on. The stuff would circumnavigate the world for months.
Nevertheless, a nuke on Tel Aviv will result in a dozen or more on muslim cities in that area. Israel will worry about the contamination after the event.
JMO
SJ
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2012 14:08:30 GMT -5
SJ, I agree, but don't you think that there is technology available currently that would have the same effect without the "dirty" residue from a nuke attack? I've seen a number of references to that sort of thing so I'm convinced that it exists. Probably not in the number needed to clear out that region, but still.... A few experiments might be in order.  Denny |
|
|
|
Post by Sir John on Nov 19, 2012 14:34:23 GMT -5
denny,
Israel could ensure air bursts only, which would minimize the fall out, but would perhaps not be a s destructive.
That big black box in mecca may need a ground burst though. I am sure it is #1 on the target list.
SJ
|
|
|
|
Post by bluejay77 on Nov 19, 2012 23:43:02 GMT -5
Or maybe neutron bombs, i. e. enhanced radiation warheads. Ie. fusion bombs which have been designed to produce a large neutron flux, but relatively little nuclear fallout compared to it.
The ordinary D + T => He + n reaction produces one neutron per fusion -- but no info on enhanced radiation warhead technology has been seen in these West-Central European media to my knowledge. However, I have seen plans for nuclear bombs in the Wikipedia and even in the Finnish SUOMEN KUVALEHTI magazine.
|
|
