An Alternative History to 9/11 Options

[Hartmann]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14753927/site/newsweek/

Interesting read. I agree that some of the things should have happened differently but some of the proposed events are just implausible. (quick executions?)

[Seeker]

summary plz

[Billy]

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Hartmann]

summary plz

Things that Bush should have done after 9/11.

Most notably, putting the 10 Mountain Division in Tora Bora as soon as the CIA reported bin Laden there. I am not sure that's a Bush problem... More like a general and colonel problem.

[Hartmann]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Exactly.

[impala454]

I love how news agencies are devoting time to writing fiction. Some people just have no clue how shit works in the real world. The liberal "why don't we all just get along" view is child-like almost. Our planet overall is very peaceful as far as I'm concerned. Think about it, over six billion people living in a world with nuclear weapons. The fact that the earth isn't a smoldering radioactive cinder by now shows at least a shred of peace. Shit we can barely agree on anything between the 30 or so people on this board. Imagine if those of us on this board were all put in a room with loaded guns.

[pebkac]

I love how news agencies are devoting time to writing fiction. Some people just have no clue how shit works in the real world. The liberal "why don't we all just get along" view is child-like almost. Our planet overall is very peaceful as far as I'm concerned. Think about it, over six billion people living in a world with nuclear weapons. The fact that the earth isn't a smoldering radioactive cinder by now shows at least a shred of peace. Shit we can barely agree on anything between the 30 or so people on this board. Imagine if those of us on this board were all put in a room with loaded guns.

Yes. You've got liberalism figured out. Liberals want nothing other than to make sure that every man, woman, and child on this planet has access to nuclear and/or biological weapons if they so choose. It's every human being's right.

[Mommy]

I love how news agencies are devoting time to writing fiction. Some people just have no clue how shit works in the real world. The liberal "why don't we all just get along" view is child-like almost. Our planet overall is very peaceful as far as I'm concerned. Think about it, over six billion people living in a world with nuclear weapons. The fact that the earth isn't a smoldering radioactive cinder by now shows at least a shred of peace. Shit we can barely agree on anything between the 30 or so people on this board. Imagine if those of us on this board were all put in a room with loaded guns.

I disagree. Look at the Middle East. There is so much unrest over there and I feel that its only a matter of time until that unrest spreads. I mean, the US is already involved over there.

I dont know if you meant that (1)right now overall our planet is peaceful, but that at times it isnt..or (2) that thus far our planet has been pretty peaceful and the future has yet to unfold.

Let me explain each scenario:
(1) At this point in time there are no wars encompassing most of the major nations of the world so our planet is relatively peaceful at the moment. In the past, however, there have been times when our planet could be considered unpeaceful: World War 1 and 2 (just to name an example). Whether or not the world is overall peaceful changes at times. It fluctuates from time to time.


(2) I am in no way ridiculing Christians, but this is commonly a Christian belief: that the world is progressively getting worse. Right now, the world is still relatively peaceful but in the future it will not be like that. There will be mass wars which involve the use of nuclear weapons etc. Basically, this is an "end of days" type view. The world is progressively getting worse and worse but has yet to be a mostly bad world.

If you mean that our world is relatively peaceful right now today like in scenario (1), then I actually might agree with you because I feel that there have been a lot worse times in history. Nuclear warfare is a fairly new technology. The reason we havent seen much of it in past wars is because it didnt exist. Had nuclear weapons been readily accessible during the world wars, things could have ended a lot worse than they did. Yes, we used the atomic bomb twice, but "luckily" we were one of the first ones to trully test that technology. I dont know if Im really making any sense, but Im just trying to say that we havent really blown a chunk out of the side of the planet yet because nuclear weapons havent been around that long. Thank God for that and I seriously mean that. I dont think any of us would be here today if that technology was centuries old. So its not really that our world is perse peaceful, but rather it is just new to the technology that could kill millions in a shorter amount of time. It took Hitler how many years to kill 11 million people? With technology advances, you could cut that time down to a couple of days.

[Seeker]

I disagree. Look at the Middle East. There is so much unrest over there and I feel that its only a matter of time until that unrest spreads. I mean, the US is already involved over there.

I dont know if you meant that (1)right now overall our planet is peaceful, but that at times it isnt..or (2) that thus far our planet has been pretty peaceful and the future has yet to unfold.

Let me explain each scenario:
(1) At this point in time there are no wars encompassing most of the major nations of the world so our planet is relatively peaceful at the moment. In the past, however, there have been times when our planet could be considered unpeaceful: World War 1 and 2 (just to name an example). Whether or not the world is overall peaceful changes at times. It fluctuates from time to time.


(2) I am in no way ridiculing Christians, but this is commonly a Christian belief: that the world is progressively getting worse. Right now, the world is still relatively peaceful but in the future it will not be like that. There will be mass wars which involve the use of nuclear weapons etc. Basically, this is an "end of days" type view. The world is progressively getting worse and worse but has yet to be a mostly bad world.

If you mean that our world is relatively peaceful right now today like in scenario (1), then I actually might agree with you because I feel that there have been a lot worse times in history. Nuclear warfare is a fairly new technology. The reason we havent seen much of it in past wars is because it didnt exist. Had nuclear weapons been readily accessible during the world wars, things could have ended a lot worse than they did. Yes, we used the atomic bomb twice, but "luckily" we were one of the first ones to trully test that technology. I dont know if Im really making any sense, but Im just trying to say that we havent really blown a chunk out of the side of the planet yet because nuclear weapons havent been around that long. Thank God for that and I seriously mean that. I dont think any of us would be here today if that technology was centuries old. So its not really that our world is perse peaceful, but rather it is just new to the technology that could kill millions in a shorter amount of time. It took Hitler how many years to kill 11 million people? With technology advances, you could cut that time down to a couple of days.

[Seeker]

I love how news agencies are devoting time to writing fiction. Some people just have no clue how shit works in the real world. The liberal "why don't we all just get along" view is child-like almost. Our planet overall is very peaceful as far as I'm concerned. Think about it, over six billion people living in a world with nuclear weapons. The fact that the earth isn't a smoldering radioactive cinder by now shows at least a shred of peace. Shit we can barely agree on anything between the 30 or so people on this board. Imagine if those of us on this board were all put in a room with loaded guns.

MAD - Mutally Assured Destruction

[Mommy]

read the last paragraph

thats the most "important" part of my post

[Spectatrix]

summary plz

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78

1. Stay on topic.

2. No personal attacks. Civility is strictly enforced!

3. There shouldn't be anything NSFW in NPR, unless it pertains to the thread, which in that case it should be linked and be given a warning.

4. Post a credible link to the article/source you are referring.

5. Posting the full text of the article is optional, but if posted please place it in a quote block to distinquish it from your commentary.

6. Don't ask someone else to summarize the article. If you want to know what it says, read it!

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: Sep 18 2006, 11:27 AM

[Jim]

IBTB

[Seeker]

http://www.techsans.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=78

as long as bush doesn't have to follow his own country's laws i don't have to follow my own message board's rules

i'm the decider, like bush

[Jim]

as long as bush doesn't have to follow his own country's laws i don't have to follow my own message board's rules

i'm the decider, like bush

NO!!!!!!!!


Acceptable answer, though.

[Hartmann]

Jessica, your comment about Christianity is only the belief of the loud minority (almost always the case with anything). I don't believe the world is going to get worse in the immediate future. The world has gone through great times and terrible times. It's cyclic, but with the creation of more destructive technologies the overall sinister feel gets worse.

[Hartmann]

http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2006-09-14/news_story.php

The problem that I have with this one is that it tries to state that thousands of people "would still be alive" in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, yet there is no one who can say that. If I had been killed in a car accident today, no one could say "If he hadn't gotten in the car this morning, he'd still be alive". Who knows, I could have choked on a pretzel.

[Mommy]

Jessica, your comment about Christianity is only the belief of the loud minority (almost always the case with anything). I don't believe the world is going to get worse in the immediate future. The world has gone through great times and terrible times. It's cyclic, but with the creation of more destructive technologies the overall sinister feel gets worse.

I thought most Christians interpreted Revelations that way... that the world is getting worse and worse and and it will some day peak at a time when Jesus has his second coming to collect all of the believers. Then the 1000 year tribulation will occur followed by the end of the world.

I dont know. thats just what I thought. I grew up strict Baptist though so that might be why I heard most Christians saying that.... it was most of the Christians that I knew

[Hartmann]

I thought most Christians interpreted Revelations that way... that the world is getting worse and worse and and it will some day peak at a time when Jesus has his second coming to collect all of the believers. Then the 1000 year tribulation will occur followed by the end of the world.

I dont know. thats just what I thought. I grew up strict Baptist though so that might be why I heard most Christians saying that.... it was most of the Christians that I knew

There is some dissention in the Church about what Revelations means. The point at which the world will officially be in the "end times" is supposed to be when Israel signs a 7 year truce with its enemies (Christ will return at this point and Christians will be "raptured"). Revelation also says that a leader will rise out of power in eastern Europe (most people think he/she will be from the Caucus Mountains region). This person will be the anti-Christ. The world will then be in turmoil with many plagues and hardships taking place. The mark of the beast will be instated and those who do not take it will be killed.

A final battle will take place with good vs. evil in what scholars believe is the area known as Megiddo (hence Armageddon).

Again, there are a lot of conflicting opinions. Some people believe we are living in the end times. Me, I'm not worried. Either way, I'm sure I will be alright.

[Mommy]

There is some dissention in the Church about what Revelations means. The point at which the world will officially be in the "end times" is supposed to be when Israel signs a 7 year truce with its enemies (Christ will return at this point and Christians will be "raptured"). Revelation also says that a leader will rise out of power in eastern Europe (most people think he/she will be from the Caucus Mountains region). This person will be the anti-Christ. The world will then be in turmoil with many plagues and hardships taking place. The mark of the beast will be instated and those who do not take it will be killed.

A final battle will take place with good vs. evil in what scholars believe is the area known as Megiddo (hence Armageddon).

Again, there are a lot of conflicting opinions. Some people believe we are living in the end times. Me, I'm not worried. Either way, I'm sure I will be alright.

I guess my point is what makes things so bad right now that people think this is the end times? I guarantee its because of nuclear weapon technology. Thats the only thing that seperates the now from the unpeaceful history of the world.

[impala454]

Yes.  You've got liberalism figured out.  Liberals want nothing other than to make sure that every man, woman, and child on this planet has access to nuclear and/or biological weapons if they so choose.  It's every human being's right.

that's not what i said at all. plain and simple, a lot of liberals just don't get it. they ask questions like "why can't we just be at peace with these people", "why do we have to go to war", "why don't we try diplomatic solutions". the truth is, people won't always get along. when there are people out there that have a blind, unrelenting hatred towards you and want to kill you, it becomes impossible to be diplomatic with them. it turns into a kill or be killed situation. typical liberal argument is that a "kill or be killed" situation can always be avoided somehow. imho this is a very naive view.

[Mommy]

honestly, i see it from both sides. I dont think its that liberals or conservatives dont know whats best. It sometimes is a good idea to repeatedly attempt diplomatic relations because going to war would cost thousands of lives, especially if the people arent backing a dictator govt. I dont know. I think its kind of pointless to point fingers at liberals or conservatives on this issue. Many think that the other side has an extreme-type view and thats not the case. Liberals feel conservatives always want war and vice versa when a lot of times that just isnt the case.

[FORSAKENR320]

I could have choked on a pretzel.

or a cock

[FORSAKENR320]

I guess my point is what makes things so bad right now that people think this is the end times? I guarantee its because of nuclear weapon technology. Thats the only thing that seperates the now from the unpeaceful history of the world.

what is funny is that attitude that you reflect on nuclear weapons was once inflicted upon the airplane.

[FORSAKENR320]

honestly, i see it from both sides. I dont think its that liberals or conservatives dont know whats best. It sometimes is a good idea to repeatedly attempt diplomatic relations because going to war would cost thousands of lives, especially if the people arent backing a dictator govt. I dont know. I think its kind of pointless to point fingers at liberals or conservatives on this issue. Many think that the other side has an extreme-type view and thats not the case. Liberals feel conservatives always want war and vice versa when a lot of times that just isnt the case.

diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" while discreetly picking up a big rock

[Mommy]

diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" while discreetly picking up a big rock

GO FETCH

[impala454]

Im just trying to say that we havent really blown a chunk out of the side of the planet yet because nuclear weapons havent been around that long. Thank God for that and I seriously mean that. I dont think any of us would be here today if that technology was centuries old. So its not really that our world is perse peaceful, but rather it is just new to the technology that could kill millions in a shorter amount of time. It took Hitler how many years to kill 11 million people? With technology advances, you could cut that time down to a couple of days.

well yeah they haven't been around that long compared to the full history of war, but the first nuke was dropped almost 65 years ago. and those bombs, while terrible, were babies. the ones we dropped on japan were something like 13-16 kilotons. we've lived in an era where we've had hundreds (maybe thousands) of ICBMs pointed at other countries who also have them pointed at us, tipped with bombs measured in the megatons. We're talking 13,000 tons vs 40,000,000, and much easier to deploy. And that's a single warhead... I think most missles have multiple warheads, and we have thousands of missles. The fact that we have lived the past 40 or however many years with this kind of firepower not getting used says something about how far our civilization has come in preserving peace. Sure there's been some wars & small countries battling, but nothing near as bad as we'd seen 30 years ago +.

Basically my point is, our ability to kill massive amounts of people has increased to an amount almost inconceivable, while the amount of killing that actually happens has decreased by just as much.

Check out these rough totals just in American deaths:

Civil War: 364,511
WW1: 116,516
WW2: 405,399
Korea: 36,574
Vietnam: 58,209
Persian Gulf: 382
Recent Iraq: 2,637

If the right people so desired, they could press a few buttons and kill 10x as many as all of those numbers totaled right now. But it hasn't happened. To me that says we're doing pretty damn well in staying peaceful as a whole.

[FORSAKENR320]

well yeah they haven't been around that long compared to the full history of war, but the first nuke was dropped almost 65 years ago. and those bombs, while terrible, were babies. the ones we dropped on japan were something like 13-16 kilotons. we've lived in an era where we've had hundreds (maybe thousands) of ICBMs pointed at other countries who also have them pointed at us, tipped with bombs measured in the megatons. We're talking 13,000 tons vs 40,000,000, and much easier to deploy. And that's a single warhead... I think most missles have multiple warheads, and we have thousands of missles. The fact that we have lived the past 40 or however many years with this kind of firepower not getting used says something about how far our civilization has come in preserving peace. Sure there's been some wars & small countries battling, but nothing near as bad as we'd seen 30 years ago +.

Basically my point is, our ability to kill massive amounts of people has increased to an amount almost inconceivable, while the amount of killing that actually happens has decreased by just as much.

Check out these rough totals just in American deaths:

Civil War: 364,511
WW1: 116,516
WW2: 405,399
Korea: 36,574
Vietnam: 58,209
Persian Gulf: 382
Recent Iraq: 2,637

If the right people so desired, they could press a few buttons and kill 10x as many as all of those numbers totaled right now. But it hasn't happened. To me that says we're doing pretty damn well in staying peaceful as a whole.

40 years is a relatively short time. we still have people alive that remmeber that time period in all it's gory horror. but what happens when the shock value of having them wears off? when people no longer remember the devastation, or worse, revel in it, not knowing the true horror of what they are handling? it's a matter of time is all. do i believe we should get rid of nuklear weapons? sure, i also believe we should go back to sword and spear style warfare. will it happen?

no.

can it happen?

no

because humans are always searching for that bigger better club.

[Hartmann]

or a cock

nope, wouldn't happen unless I was already dead.

[FORSAKENR320]

nope, wouldn't happen unless I was already dead.

can be arranged

[impala454]

40 years is a relatively short time. we still have people alive that remmeber that time period in all it's gory horror.

but how many people who participated in and lived through WW2 or older are in a position of power today?

[FORSAKENR320]

but how many people who participated in and lived through WW2 or older are in a position of power today?

a bottom gunner on one of the planes that bombed hiroshima is mayor of plainview

[impala454]

yeah because we all know the mayor of plainview is a position of power

[FORSAKENR320]

yeah because we all know the mayor of plainview is a position of power

i was gonna get into a big and informational post about how i was using that as an example to show that those people still have influence today, but i gotta go to work, so i'll just replace it with








"shut up fattie"

[impala454]

k i'll leave it at that then... fag

[Mommy]

I feel that it is more out of selfishness rather than a desire to preserve peace that people havent gone nuke crazy yet. Think about it: one considerably sized nuke set off and the whole world would be up in arms bombing the shit out of each other. The weapons are there as a scare tactic but unless you get a totally wacky ruler in a nation, they wont be used for selfish fear of retaliation.

[John6.7]

a bottom gunner on one of the planes that bombed hiroshima is mayor of plainview

One of the planes?
Did you mean the one the dropped the atomic bomb?

And if so... the Enola Gay only had one gun position, in the tail.

[Hartmann]

One of the planes?
Did you mean the one the dropped the atomic bomb?

And if so... the Enola Gay only had one gun position, in the tail.

Actually the B-29 has two bottom turrets, but they are remote controlled by the assistant flight engineer and the radar operator. I am fairly sure you are correct though, the bottom turrets (there were 2) were removed to allow for extra passengers (10,000 rounds of ammo is a lot of weight).

Bockscar dropped 'Fat Man' on Nagasaki.
It's Asst. Flight Engineer was: Staff Sgt. Ray Gallagher
Radar Operator: Staff Sgt. Edward Buckley

Enola Gay dropped 'Little Boy' on Hiroshima.
Asst. Flight Engineer: Sergeant Robert Shumard
Radar Operator: Sergeant Joe Stiborik

Enola Gay carried a modified crew (smaller) because they were unsure of what was going to happen when the bomb dropped.

I don't see "Anderson" (Plainview's mayor) on either flight's manifest.

[pebkac]

honestly, i see it from both sides. I dont think its that liberals or conservatives dont know whats best. It sometimes is a good idea to repeatedly attempt diplomatic relations because going to war would cost thousands of lives, especially if the people arent backing a dictator govt. I dont know. I think its kind of pointless to point fingers at liberals or conservatives on this issue. Many think that the other side has an extreme-type view and thats not the case. Liberals feel conservatives always want war and vice versa when a lot of times that just isnt the case.

...

I.... I....

_agree_

with something Jessica said.

[John6.7]

Ya, the Silverplated B-29 were stripped down to nothing.

[FORSAKENR320]

One of the planes?
Did you mean the one the dropped the atomic bomb?

And if so... the Enola Gay only had one gun position, in the tail.

he was escort, if i remember correctly. there WAS escort planes until the safe distance was cleared.