Osama bin Laden dead(supposedly)

[Zeonix]

I'm not going to address any of the posts in this thread about Osama and the implications of his death because the vast majority of you have no idea what you're talking about, but I will say that nuclear weapons have their place in the world. While the US has close to around 5100 nuclear warheads, only 2200 of them are active, and that number is going to drop to 1550 relatively soon. They are not an offensive weapon. They serve only as a deterrent, and one that's worked out pretty well for just about everyone. Because, you know, we're not the only goddamn nation with nukes. As you stated, they attack us, we attack them, we attack them and they attack us. It keeps the checkbook balanced. Number of nations bombed with nukes since WW2? Yeah, zero. Even at the brink of a full-scale war between the US and Russia, the idea of total annihilation put too much of a bad taste in everyones' mouths to actually use them. I'm going to go ahead and say the States are probably the safest place for nukes.

But if you want to talk about accountability and lack of procedure, you should probably be focusing your attention on Russia, who has more nukes than we do, and was responsible for "losing" all types of SNM and "accessories" after the fall of the USSR, a lot of which fell on the US and its allies to reclaim. But, you know, that's rarely part of the narrative so we don't talk about it.

 

[Prozac]

I'm not talking about all technology, I am more or less talking about 90% of all war-based technologies. And while I understand that many everyday technologies were once funded by the military for development, that eventually ended up in our every day lives., I still don't trust any country with an arsenal of A-bombs for example. The only reason some countries (like the US) still have these are Just-in-case reasons. (Read: "We'll have you know that we have a ****load of A-bombs, attack us, and we'll bomb your country to hell"-mentality.) Other than that, there is no reason to still have them. Yet supposedly, America still has up to 5000 of them (source: Reuters). And honestly, who can blame me for being a bit distrusting and wary about that. Especially some Americans (I am not trying to generalize you), what with their sense of patriotism.

America has been attacked quite a bit in the last 5 orso decades.
Didn't see any a-bombs being dropped.

 

[Sicron]

Recently, no. But then again, it only takes one. America probably wouldn't go that far. Unless you start nuking them, then all their patriotism will burst in a single nuclear filled attack. In my opinion.

 

[Barack Obama]

Only time will tell.

 

[FalconFury]

Hmph, I know what was going on since bin laden starts the war with the al qeadas. AND hinding from other americans who are trying to kill him OR get any information from him.

Like obama said that was a fabricated (untruthful) comment. Did not shot him in the head.



If he did then he will never come back alive.

 

[Zeonix]

Recently, no. But then again, it only takes one. America probably wouldn't go that far. Unless you start nuking them, then all their patriotism will burst in a single nuclear filled attack. In my opinion.

Uh...what the hell does patriotism have to do with using force equal to that used against you? The concept of MAD is not patriotism veiled with sound military strategy.

 

[Barack Obama]

I can assure everyone that we have no nuclear weapons what so ever! It's all in your imagination. Move along people, nothing to see here.

 

[Mkilbride]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Sicron, you've never heard of this? It's the best way to hold peace.

Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender,[1] becoming thus a war that has no victory nor any armistice but only total destruction. It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to disarm.

 

[Rocky]

I'm not going to address any of the posts in this thread about Osama and the implications of his death because the vast majority of you have no idea what you're talking about, but I will say that nuclear weapons have their place in the world. While the US has close to around 5100 nuclear warheads, only 2200 of them are active, and that number is going to drop to 1550 relatively soon. They are not an offensive weapon. They serve only as a deterrent, and one that's worked out pretty well for just about everyone. Because, you know, we're not the only goddamn nation with nukes. As you stated, they attack us, we attack them, we attack them and they attack us. It keeps the checkbook balanced. Number of nations bombed with nukes since WW2? Yeah, zero. Even at the brink of a full-scale war between the US and Russia, the idea of total annihilation put too much of a bad taste in everyones' mouths to actually use them. I'm going to go ahead and say the States are probably the safest place for nukes.

But if you want to talk about accountability and lack of procedure, you should probably be focusing your attention on Russia, who has more nukes than we do, and was responsible for "losing" all types of SNM and "accessories" after the fall of the USSR, a lot of which fell on the US and its allies to reclaim. But, you know, that's rarely part of the narrative so we don't talk about it.

I waited 60 posts for you to get in this thread and deliver something amazing to some ignorant, unsuspecting fool. I was disappointed cause I wanted to know your thoughts on the implications of his death.

 

[Zeonix]

All Ill say is you've never seen Osama and Obama at the same place at the same time. What is Osama awesome at? Hiding in plain sight, for all the world to see. I'm just saying.

Connect the dots.

When I return in a few days, if the thread is still alive I'll post a tirade that will be both sarcastic and condescending. But only because you make me feel like its my responsibility to do so.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I waited 60 posts for you to get in this thread and deliver something amazing to some ignorant, unsuspecting fool. I was disappointed cause I wanted to know your thoughts on the implications of his death.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anything he might know in relation to what has happened shouldn't be repeated on an internet forum. I fully expected him to not post here at all.

 

[Zeonix]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anything he might know in relation to what has happened shouldn't be repeated on an internet forum. I fully expected him to not post here at all.

OpSec is always key, but anything I post will be purely in terms of the scope of Al-Qaeda's capabilities vs. general perception, our goals in CENTCOM and why the death of Osama changes nothing tactically and quite a bit as far as our foreign policy goes. In other words, my completely opinionated musings and inferences, most of which came about while I was zoning out doing something stupid like buddy crawls for 1000m (a buddy crawl is you low crawling with someone on your back; it's ******* retarded).

 

[Rocky]

All Ill say is you've never seen Osama and Obama at the same place at the same time. What is Osama awesome at? Hiding in plain sight, for all the world to see. I'm just saying.

Connect the dots.

When I return in a few days, if the thread is still alive I'll post a tirade that will be both sarcastic and condescending. But only because you make me feel like its my responsibility to do so.

I've never seen you or Osama in the same place at the same time either . But yes, you are the most entertaining person on this forum, not only is it your responsibility, it is your duty to break everything down Barney style for my amusement.

 

[DiebytheSword]

OpSec is always key, but anything I post will be purely in terms of the scope of Al-Qaeda's capabilities vs. general perception, our goals in CENTCOM and why the death of Osama changes nothing tactically and quite a bit as far as our foreign policy goes. In other words, my completely opinionated musings and inferences, most of which came about while I was zoning out doing something stupid like buddy crawls for 1000m (a buddy crawl is you low crawling with someone on your back; it's ******* retarded).

I'm of the opinion that the intellegence gleaned from the operation is of more importance than his death. That said, I look forward to your musing.

 

[Prozac]

I've never seen you or Osama in the same place at the same time either . But yes, you are the most entertaining person on this forum, not only is it your responsibility, it is your duty to break everything down Barney style for my amusement.

On that note, I've never seen spunky or obama in the same place either!

 

[jp]

I sincerely hope they did get him, but a lot of people I talk to fear that he was killed a long time ago by a random land-mine or didn't get killed at all.

Besides him being killed is justice, it won't make any difference to the level of terrorism that's going on right now - it might just get any worse.

 

[Synth]

Well, they are releasing some photos.

I suppose they will be questioned by "photoshop experts" also trying to profit off other conspiracies through e-mail subscriptions and books, during the commercial breaks of their shows.