Trump is finally...

[Kantarii]

The cost is potential theater-wide nuclear war.

How many World Naval powers are currently in that vicinity?

Okay. Potential nuclear war is being speculative. No one country is going to want to start global nuclear war. It’s gameover destroying the only planet in the solar system that supports life in a fiery Hell.

Who are you considering a world Naval power? Most countries of significance are NATO countries bound by treaty. Russia? China? Without air superiority, ships are sitting ducks in the water without protection.

 

[Hal9000_]

Okay. Potential nuclear war is being speculative. No one country is going to want to start global nuclear war. It’s gameover destroying the only planet in the solar system that supports life in a fiery Hell.

Who are you considering a world Naval power? Most countries of significance are NATO countries bound by treaty. Russia? China? Without air superiority, ships are sitting ducks in the water without protection.

Oh...you know they would call it "limited nuclear war"...

Acceptable losses and all.

 

[Kantarii]

How many missiles did it take to sink a warship?

(granted, modern warships have better defenses, but we are talking about tankers)

You mean how many does it take? To my knowledge, no oil tanker has ever been sunk by a missle. It took an iceberg to sink the Titanic in 1912. Torpedos to sink the Lusitania later on. An oil tanker is probable in the tonnage range of an aircraft carrier. The Exon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, leaking oil, but the damage wasn’t enough to potentially sink it. I would venture to say the fires from burning oil and pollution to the ocean would be bigger threats than an oil tank sinking. Then again, anything’s possible.

 

[Que]

How soon.

When faced with logic and reason you fold in to the very thing you complain about:

Ad hominem.

You also use appeal to authority and appeal to emotion.

All logical fallacies.

Since you crave the attention I will give it to you this once.

SMH

I keep explaining this to you of the rhetorically challenge contingent. Identifying a potential logical fallacy gives you the key to construct an argument to defeat the fallacious argument. Identifying a potential fallacy does not in and of itself defeat an argument.

It's fine if you need those cheat sheets at your side in the midst of debate but hollering out what you think the other guy just committed instead of defeating his argument is silly. You would lose to any 7th grade debate team.

What do you think you were doing other than appealing to Authority when you posted articles to support your position?

 

[Hal9000_]

You mean how many does it take? To my knowledge, no oil tanker has ever been sunk by a missle. It took an iceberg to sink the Titanic in 1912. Torpedos to sink the Lusitania later on. An oil tanker is probable in the tonnage range of an aircraft carrier. The Exon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, leaking oil, but the damage wasn’t enough to potentially sink it. I would venture to say the fires from burning oil and pollution to the ocean would be bigger threats than an oil tank sinking. Then again, anything’s possible.

It took one missile to sink HMS Sheffield in the Falklands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_HMS_Sheffield

It is true, however, that environmental protection laws now make most supertankers double hulled.

 

[Hal9000_]

SMH

I keep explaining this to you of the rhetorically challenge contingent. Identifying a potential logical fallacy gives you the key to construct an argument to defeat the fallacious argument. Identifying a potential fallacy does not in and of itself defeat an argument.

It's fine if you need those cheat sheets at your side in the midst of debate but hollering out what you think the other guy just committed instead of defeating his argument is silly. You would lose to any 7th grade debate team.

What do you think you were doing other than appealing to Authority when you posted articles to support your position?

Why do you assume I was responding to any specific argument?

I was simply stating an observation. Which is off topic and irrelevant.

Kudos on the attempt to keep it going.

 

[Kantarii]

Oh...you know they would call it "limited nuclear war"...

Acceptable losses and all.

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Russia would be the only one to do that unless China reneges on their policy of no first strike. Let’s say they did and see if this sounds like limited nuclear war to you.

Russia fires first. America retaliates. Who all is siding with Russia that have nuclear weapons - North Korea and possibly China. North Korea’s nukes haven’t proven effective. We rule them out, but they could still target Japan. Let’s say China seizes the opportunity based on their no first strike policy and launch against America. India is an ally and at odds with China. So they launch against China. India’s neighbor have nukes and favor China as well as dislike India. They launch on India. Seems pretty limited, but England and France have nukes as well and would probably launch on who ever fired against India. It’s not proven, but Israel has been rumored to have nukes. Doesn’t matter really.

The US and Russia have the lion share of nukes. So while America targets only Russia and China. Russia would be forced to target America’s military bases in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific.

Does that sound limited? Suddenly, South America and Antarctica seem pretty safe, but where is all the fallout going to settle? Nuclear war isn’t really an acceptable method to wage war and live above ground.

 

[Hal9000_]

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Russia would be the only one to do that unless China reneges on their policy of no first strike. Let’s say they did and see if this sounds like limited nuclear war to you.

Russia fires first. America retaliates. Who are siding with Russia that have nuclear weapons - North Korea and possibly China. North Korea’s nukes haven’t proven effective. We rule them out, but they could still target Japan. Let’s say China seizes the opportunity based on their no first strike policy and launch against America. India is an ally and at odds with China. So they launch against China. India’s neighbor have nukes and favor China as well as dislike India. They launch on India. Seems pretty limited, but England and France have nukes as well and would probably launch on who ever fired against India. It’s not proven, but Israel has been rumored to have nukes. Doesn’t matter really.

The US and Russia have the lion share of nukes. So while America targets only Russia and China. Russia would be forced to target America’s military bases in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific.

Does that sound limited? Suddenly, South America and Antarctica seem pretty safe, but where is all the fallout going to settle. Nuclear war isn’t really an acceptable method to wage war and live above ground.

Sounds more and more like WWIII, to me.

 

[Kantarii]

Time to take a break and find a midnight snack at 1am.

 

[Que]

Why do you assume I was responding to any specific argument?

I was simply stating an observation. Which is off topic and irrelevant.

Kudos on the attempt to keep it going.

So when they appeal to authority you win because it's fallacious and when you cite authority you're just making an observation?

I don't think that is how it works.

 

[Hal9000_]

So when they appeal to authority you win because it's fallacious and when you cite authority you're just making an observation?

I don't think that is how it works.

yes.

Although I've never claimed victory.

I claim observation.

My "cites" are observations, as well.

you may interpret them as you will.

 

[zipman]

This thread keeps getting more and more entertaining.

I'm not sure what I think is funniest, that this situation somehow reminds Kantthinkii of War of the Worlds? I mean maybe our air will somehow kill the Iranians.

Or someone else being an expert because their father was a naval aviator?

Or Que giving anyone a lecture on debating.

Fucking Comedy Gold.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You floated?

I used to be able to comfortably sit on the bottom of the family pool.

If I hold as much air in my lungs as I can, but as soon as I try breathing I sink.

 

[Que]

If I hold as much air in my lungs as I can, but as soon as I try breathing I sink.

No BUDS for you, then.

I float like Rob on the Dead Sea now but back in the day I was the same but not only did I have to have a full lungs, I had to scissor kick a tiny bit.

 

[Que]

yes.

Although I've never claimed victory.

I claim observation.

My "cites" are observations, as well.

you may interpret them as you will.

So why try to score points pointing out the names of logical fallacies?

This thread keeps getting more and more entertaining.

I'm not sure what I think is funniest, that this situation somehow reminds Kantthinkii of War of the Worlds? I mean maybe our air will somehow kill the Iranians.

Or someone else being an expert because their father was a naval aviator?

Or Que giving anyone a lecture on debating.

Fucking Comedy Gold.

I wouldn't bother with you; you cannot properly form a quarrel, much less debate.

. . .or did you think that I rarely engage you because I'm shy or you advance such insurmountable positions?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I have no idea how to Uber. Much like tweets, I feel like I must be missing something.

 

[RobDownSouth]

yes.

Although I've never claimed victory.

I claim observation.

My "cites" are observations, as well.

you may interpret them as you will.

He'll interpret them in the light most favorable to his position, and, failing that, ascribe a completely unrelated position to you and then criticize you for "your" position.

That's what he does.

Over and over.

There's a special hashtag for him designed to commemorate his legendary intellectual dishonesty and soooperior debate skillz: #AscriptionAgain

 

[Que]

I have no idea how to Uber. Much like tweets, I feel like I must be missing something.

I've taken one Uber for me and I've sent an Uber twice for other people. Near as I can tell it's basically hitchhiking with an audit trail.

Rob swears by it. That might be what soured me on the whole deal. He apparently picks up extra cash on the weekends picking up a little extra cash with his rental return Taurus when he's not spending the cash picking up tranny hookers.

 

[Que]

He'll interpret them in the light most favorable to his position, and, failing that, ascribe a completely unrelated position to you and then criticize you for "your" position.

That's what he does.

Over and over.

There's a special hashtag for him designed to commemorate his legendary intellectual dishonesty and soooperior debate skillz: #AscriptionAgain

Try and keep up with a conversational thread. He and I weren't much debating anything. I was pointing out that he's using the RDS School of retarded debate where you identify alleged logical fallacies but you don't bother to actually defeat them. You would actually like his debate chops he's just as bad as you are, except for he at least has a fleshed out point of view.

 

[RobDownSouth]

If I hold as much air in my lungs as I can, but as soon as I try breathing I sink.

Really? With as much kimchi-related flatulence circulating around your house as a youngster, one would have thought you'd be quite good at holding your breath, as a simple survival mechanism.

 

[icanhelp1]

There is no such thing as limited nuclear war. Russia would be the only one to do that unless China reneges on their policy of no first strike. Let’s say they did and see if this sounds like limited nuclear war to you.

Russia fires first. America retaliates. Who all is siding with Russia that have nuclear weapons - North Korea and possibly China. North Korea’s nukes haven’t proven effective. We rule them out, but they could still target Japan. Let’s say China seizes the opportunity based on their no first strike policy and launch against America. India is an ally and at odds with China. So they launch against China. India’s neighbor have nukes and favor China as well as dislike India. They launch on India. Seems pretty limited, but England and France have nukes as well and would probably launch on who ever fired against India. It’s not proven, but Israel has been rumored to have nukes. Doesn’t matter really.

The US and Russia have the lion share of nukes. So while America targets only Russia and China. Russia would be forced to target America’s military bases in Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific.

Does that sound limited? Suddenly, South America and Antarctica seem pretty safe, but where is all the fallout going to settle? Nuclear war isn’t really an acceptable method to wage war and live above ground.

I agree, as soon as the first nuclear device is used the threat becomes a global one. If a country can use nuclear on another then a pre-emptive strike from a third party become a feasible form of self defense.

Putin knows he can't go toe to toe conventionally with the U.S. and he is just militant enough to think a nuclear strike is the only option.

The next Cuban style showdown between the U.S. and Russia ( Trump and Putin ) I predict will not end well, neither will back down. Putin observed Trump's demeanor and determination with missle strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons, even with Russian troops in syria. Putin also watched 400+ of his mercenaries killed when massed against U.S. forces in Syria. It kind of puts Putin between a rock and a hard place.

Each country has the retaliatory capability to destroy each other several times over and the result is eventual global destruction and leave the planet uninhabitable for years ( a total exchange aprox 13,000 devices ) not counting the other countries. The Russian second strike ( the dead hand ) is deep underground with specific instructions to finish destroying anything left targeting anything and everything.
Even if the exchange is limited to just the U.S. and Russia the effect of the residual radiation fallout will pretty much affect all living things.

The Chinese nuclear posture is a passive one but deadly all the same. The U.S. triad assures total destruction. Please don't bore me with the 7x7x7 theory, don't believe it. Fat man and little boy were firecrackers ( 18 to 22 KTs ) compared to what's in today's arsenals ( 50 MTs average and as high as 200 MTs ). I could list every weapon type and its yield but I'll leave that to you, you will be horrified. That's just the nuclear aspect, then we have the chemical and biological weapons that would be unleashed to round out the whole NBC warfare. The DOOMSDAY CLOCK is at 2 minutes, the closest it's ever been. Just my humble opinion.

 

[Rightguide]

Really? With as much kimchi-related flatulence circulating around your house as a youngster, one would have thought you'd be quite good at holding your breath, as a simple survival mechanism.

Why do so many of your posts have racial connotations? Is there a white sheet with eye holes in the old footlocker at the foot of your bed?

 

[icanhelp1]

Why do so many of your posts have racial connotations? Is there a white sheet with eye holes in the old footlocker at the foot of your bed?

The vitriol on this site is truly amazing. There is such a lack of self control and so much hatred towards anyone capable of independent thought. I think GB leans left.

 

[icanhelp1]

What are the numbers of shore batteries? I've read hundreds.

So...they say "fuck it", and sink a couple dozen tankers in the narrowest parts of the strait. Before we can mount a counter attack and silence them.

Then, they start harassment with their subs and small vessels. They have indicated full willingness to use kamikaze boats.

Salvage Ops to reopen traffic lanes would take at least months for partial shipping.

Meanwhile, it blows up in to total war. Who knows what Russia and China will do. Sit back idly?

The Iranians are a troublesome lot but they're not suicidal. They value their military assets. The capability of one Arleigh Burke class destroyer is quite capable of defending against what Iran's shore batteries and naval fleet threats. A carrier task force is quite formidable with quite a range of missiles, torpedos, aircraft both fixed and rotary supported with long range bombers carrying j-dams with individual targeting capabilities at 50,000 ft. and possibly a Virginia class attack sub for fleet security against sub warfare.

 

[about_average]

You mean how many does it take? To my knowledge, no oil tanker has ever been sunk by a missle.

You might want to read up on the tanker war of the 80's.
Many tankers were sunk by torpedo, bombs and shells in WWII. Missiles are much more accurate and difficult to dodge. You generally can't comb the tracks or chase the splashes with missiles.