The War in Iraq.

[TheMailMan]

I just wanted be the first to start a thread about the war in the news section!

[TheMailMan]

i beleive in it to a point, and the point is, i would rather not see them people opressed again cause as soon as we leave some dickhead is gonna take over again, i know most are gonna say its not our war, but wouldnt that be nice if we could just hide under our blankets like most people do and not look at how the world is and just ignore the truth, i dont play that game.

I agree. What I also agree about is the fact I made the first thread in this section :D

[DrPepper]

I wonder what the UK/US's next war will be this one took ageees.

[DaMulta]

The way to win the war


Fuel Air Bombs AKA the new Nukes. As stong as a Nuke and legal by any county to use.


USA and Russia have these:)

http://cientifica.eu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/_44111852_russian_bomb_inf416.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/MOAB_bomb.jpg/275px-MOAB_bomb.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGrDSP0rj8

[DrPepper]

I like these things. I mean cmon this is like super napalm. Except more awesome.

[JC316]

I sense the first potential lock of the forum. Honestly, I have never supported this war. How exactly did it go from "we are going to kick Osama's ass" to "aw screw him, lets get a dictator out of office" to "we have to stay and support the fledgling government". I say it was primarily after the oil that's over there.

I support the troops 100%, but not the war.

[pcgolfer85]

I sense the first potential lock of the forum. Honestly, I have never supported this war. How exactly did it go from "we are going to kick Osama's ass" to "aw screw him, lets get a dictator out of office" to "we have to stay and support the fledgling government". I say it was primarily after the oil that's over there.

I support the troops 100%, but not the war.

I completely agree with you here. Well said. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The difficult decision here is when to leave Iraq? It is one of those situations where no matter when we decide to leave Iraq, it will not be easy.

[DrPepper]

I completely agree with you here. Well said. I couldn't have said it better myself.

The difficult decision here is when to leave Iraq? It is one of those situations where no matter when we decide to leave Iraq, it will not be easy.

It should me made the 51st state of america :p

[DIppyskoodlez]

I've heard from people that have been there that it was a good thing, and from some that it was a bad thing....

I used to think we shouldn't have gone in, but atm I just don't even have an opinion anymore... there are just not nearly enough of the facts available to the public IMO to make a qualified decision on the subject.

Sadly, this is one of the things we as a country have to place our trust in the leadership to make the right decisions. They are the only ones with the facts in front of them to consider.

This thread would probably be better server in the Politics forum though.

[SK-1]

USA and Russia have these:)



Yea check out Russia's version 4 times stronger than a moab
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM&feature=related

[DaMulta]

They always have to have bigger bombs. Just like the giant nuke that would of set the atmosphere on fire if they could of found a way to fire the sucker off.

[DrPepper]

They always have to have bigger bombs. Just like the giant nuke that would of set the atmosphere on fire if they could of found a way to fire the sucker off.

Your talking about the tsar bomba ?

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

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6279945569633429232

[DaMulta]

Yes, that bomb almost ended the world. Some scientist say that if it would of been the full planned bomb it would of set the atmosphere on fire.

[DrPepper]

Yes, that bomb almost ended the world. Some scientist say that if it would of been the full planned bomb it would of set the atmosphere on fire.

Damn I hate almost. I don't think it would have set the atmosphere on fire its kinda unreactive, would have been cool to watch though :D

[DaMulta]

Well as you read in the Wiki the 50 half of what was planned. The blast went off as high as airplanes fly.

[SK-1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyDOAmJYFFA

[FordGT90Concept]

The war in Iraq is drawing to a close. The mission was accomplished (Iraqi's are governed by a republic which they can partake in) so most of the troops will be leaving in the next few years. However, all the terrorists moved to the Afghan/Pakistan border so we're basically having to restart the war on that front.

We actually may start making progress there because, finally, Pakistan is starting to put their backs into getting rid of the Taliban on their side (since they won't let anyone across the border). We'll see how that front unfolds in the next few months.


It is a fallacy that a hydrogen bomb can "set the atmosphere on fire." The reason why it can't happen is the very same reason why it is so difficult to sustain a fusion reaction for power plants. Once you start a fusion reaction, all your fuel (the hydrogen/other light elements) wants to get away from the ignition source. In the case of bombs, that's the boom; however, when the fuel moves away from the ignition source, it also loses heat and energy.

In the end, you need a substantial amount of energy to keep the fuel contained in a small space for the reaction to be sustained. The atmosphere, as is, is not dense enough to be conducive to fusion--Earth's gravity isn't strong enough to compress the elements to the point they can fuse.


By the way, Tsar Bomba was actually designed for three sizes: 50 MT, 100 MT, and 150 MT. They only detonated a 50 MT which was the largest man made explosion on Earth. Because no one challenged the Russians by making a similar sized bomb, they decided to discontinue plans to make the larger bombs.

[pepsi71ocean]

how we got into the country is irreverent, how we leave is another story.

pulling the troops out right now would be worseIMO. Either way the world will hate us, and they will hate us more if we left and the country collapsed and then the world will bitch at us for that "we didn't have to stomach to finish the job" or "you american's can't do anything right" etic.

I support the war on terror, and i would support the war more if we let the generals run the wars, and let the politicians play politics. I hate politics in war, and IMO that is what is worse then invading another country, if the military ran the war then it would be over by now.

[FordGT90Concept]

Oh, but they are connected. Politicians win the civilian front of the war while the military wins the deadly front of the war. If the politicans screw up, like they did in Vietnam and Iraq (pt. 2), the military front is shamed and there is a lot of political position on them to either quit or do something to make the politicians happy.

You're right, polticians should stay out of military affairs and support the previous decisions that were made; however, more and more often they pick up pickets and protest their own votes as well (idiots, like Hillary Clinton).

They both have their role and they are supposed to help each other out. As of late, both sides failed (politicans didn't get public support and the military wasn't prepared to police Iraq for many years).

[hat]

Hussein wanted to sell oil in the Euro and not the Dollar, which meant we would have to pay an extra 18% on his oil if we bought it. That's the real reason we went in there. First thing we did was scrure all the oilfields. The government is using the war on terror as a blanket to cover up the real truth. The middle east has been doing this kind of shit for thousands of years, and Hussein has been torturing ever since he came to power. If we really cared about throwing an evil dictator out of office, why didn't we do it 15 years ago during Desert Storm, the oil war between Kuwait and Iraq which we aided Kuwait in? We were engaged in an actual war against Iraq, not today where we're fighting this bullshit Vietnam-esque war in various countries against various terrorist groups?

[FordGT90Concept]

We secured the oil fields first because in Desert Storm, Hussein blew them up to cover his retreat from Kuwait. We didn't want him doing that again because it is dangerous, time consuming, and expensive to cap uncontrolled oil wells.

We didn't go to Baghdad back in Desert Storm because we weren't prepared for it. George W. Bush got a collation together to get Hussein out of Kuwait, no more, no less. The only reason why Desert Storm is considered a wild success today is because he didn't go to Baghdad. The logistics weren't in place, the troops weren't equipped for city combat, there were no plans drawn up to establish civil control in the cities/towns, and the work wasn't done to layout how the new government would work.


The special forces that secured the refineries in 2003 (they were actually the first to arrive in Iraq before the war officially started) arrived just after some of Hussein's goons did to blow the place up. The Iraqi workers running the refinery refused to tell them how to blow it up. One of the workers was found dead, killed assassination style (on knees, bullet through the back of the head), to convince the other workers to talk. That refinery probably wouldn't be operation today if those troops arrived an hour later than they did.



Air blast bombs are about 1/1000th the power of the weakest atomic bombs (like that used on Hiroshima). The MOAB is the equivilent of 25,245 lbs (~11 tons) of TNT going off. Hiroshima was the equivilent of 26,000,000 lbs (~13,000 tons) of TNT going off. Mind you, 13kt is considered small for a nuclear weapon. There is no comparison.

The largest hydrogen bomb detonated (Tsar Bomba) was the equivilent of 100,000,000,000 lbs (~50,000,000 tons) of TNT going off...

These are about equivilent in explosion (first is atomic, second is not):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Davy_Crockett_bomb.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/MOABprototype.jpg

[hat]

"We secured the oil fields first because in Desert Storm, Hussein blew them up to cover his retreat from Kuwait. We didn't want him doing that again because it is dangerous, time consuming, and expensive to cap uncontrolled oil wells."

- A brilliant move on Hussien's part. Why should he let us have the oil if he can't have it? Someone in the government JUMPED on 9/11 to boost American morale and used it to start TWAT.

"We didn't go to Baghdad back in Desert Storm because we weren't prepared for it. George W. Bush got a collation together to get Hussein out of Kuwait, no more, no less. The only reason why Desert Storm is considered a wild success today is because he didn't go to Baghdad. The logistics weren't in place, the troops weren't equipped for city combat, there were no plans drawn up to establish civil control in the cities/towns, and the work wasn't done to layout how the new government would work."

- We could have just as easily set up logistics in Kuwait and equipped our war machine for urban combat there. The work for a new government wasn't ready-made for the current situation in Iraq either.

"The special forces that secured the refineries in 2003 (they were actually the first to arrive in Iraq before the war officially started) arrived just after some of Hussein's goons did to blow the place up. The Iraqi workers running the refinery refused to tell them how to blow it up. One of the workers was found dead, killed assassination style (on knees, bullet through the back of the head), to convince the other workers to talk. That refinery probably wouldn't be operation today if those troops arrived an hour later than they did."

- This only further proves my point. The first thing we went after were the oil facilities, and Hussein tried to take preventative measures against it but he was a little too late.

"Air blast bombs are about 1/1000th the power of the weakest atomic bombs (like that used on Hiroshima). The MOAB is the equivilent of 25,245 lbs (~11 tons) of TNT going off. Hiroshima was the equivilent of 26,000,000 lbs (~13,000 tons) of TNT going off. Mind you, 13kt is considered small for a nuclear weapon. There is no comparison.

The largest hydrogen bomb detonated (Tsar Bomba) was the equivilent of 100,000,000,000 lbs (~50,000,000 tons) of TNT going off...

These are about equivilent in explosion (first is atomic, second is not)"

- Totally agreed. There is nothing known to man more powerful than nuclear energy. Not even in the war department. We totally leveled that island we used to test our hydrogen bomb on, and it's still uninhabitable today and will be for many years to come. It's not going to last for thousands upon thousands of years like radation caused by fission reactions though, since hydrogen is much cleaner than uranium.

[FordGT90Concept]

A brilliant move on Hussien's part. Why should he let us have the oil if he can't have it? Someone in the government JUMPED on 9/11 to boost American morale and used it to start TWAT.
USA gets very little of its oil from Iraq. The only time we really did was with the "oil for food" program which, well, flopped. It is too expensive for us to ship food that far and it isn't very economical to transport oil that far when we have a cheaper source of oil available in this hemisphere (Venezula, Gulf Coast, Alaska).


We could have just as easily set up logistics in Kuwait and equipped our war machine for urban combat there. The work for a new government wasn't ready-made for the current situation in Iraq either.
It takes months to years to plan a war, not days or weeks. If we camped out in Kuwait, Hussein would have good reason to try out his chemical weapons and SCUDs. The troops on the ground would be sitting ducks. Moreover, realize that the middle east is a desert so supplies are scarce and the sand is very damaging to the equipment. The reasons not to have invaded Iraq go on and on. It's not like we can change history so why does it matter? Desert Storm went down in the history books as the model for modern warfare. Why change it?


This only further proves my point. The first thing we went after were the oil facilities, and Hussein tried to take preventative measures against it but he was a little too late.
If you cut off Iraq's oil supply, you cut off their funding. You also limit the mobility of Iraq's cavalry (forces rationing of fuel). We learned in WWII that, who controls the oil, controls the war. Those lessons were applied in Kuwait by Hussein and by coalition forces in Iraq. Fight smarter, not harder. ;)


Totally agreed. There is nothing known to man more powerful than nuclear energy. Not even in the war department. We totally leveled that island we used to test our hydrogen bomb on, and it's still uninhabitable today and will be for many years to come. It's not going to last for thousands upon thousands of years like radation caused by fission reactions though, since hydrogen is much cleaner than uranium.
Yeah, the little bit of radiation there is caused by the fission trigger in a fusion bomb. Almost all radiation could be removed from fusion bombs if they found a non-radioactive way to start it. This is the same reason why fusion power is so sought after.

[DrPepper]

- Totally agreed. There is nothing known to man more powerful than nuclear energy. Not even in the war department. We totally leveled that island we used to test our hydrogen bomb on, and it's still uninhabitable today and will be for many years to come. It's not going to last for thousands upon thousands of years like radation caused by fission reactions though, since hydrogen is much cleaner than uranium.

If by We you mean the USA then your wrong but if you mean we as in humans that levelled that island then you would be right. It was the russians that dropped that massive bomb. It was completely for show though because the USSR couldn't accurately drop a nuke so they used large ones to make sure even if they missed the still got it.

Also there are smaller nukes than the fatman and little boy. For example the davy crocket and these moab's and foab's are designed to replace small nuclear weapons int he <2kt range because they are more accurate and not radioactive.

[FordGT90Concept]

The Tsar Bomba was detonated north of the arctic circle:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Ivan_bomb.png

It was the product of the arms race of the Cold War. USA and USSR were trying to out do each other in terms of megatonage. USA never made something to compete with the Tsar Bomba because USA preferred MIRVs (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle) to a single big blast. I do believe the biggest MIRV USA made was the LGM-118 Peacekeeper which had 10 reentry vehicles of up to 300 kt each (3 Mt total). They are now decomissioned.


Most of early USA bomb tests were performed at the Pacific Proving Grounds, mostly the Marshall Islands:
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/MarshallIslands.jpg

We later moved testing underground in the Western USA.


The Davy Crocket was about the smallest deployed nuclear weapon. It was a suicide weapon though because the launch system couldn't propel the war head far enough to spare the crew that launched it.

MOAB is pretty useless. It is dropped by the C-130 which is a slow, low flying aircraft. A B-52, B-1B, or B2 carpet bombing run is more effective and more readily available. MOAB's only real use is as a scare tactic. C-130 is the same platform for Spooky gunships, supply, and troop transports. If troops on the ground see a C-130 approaching, they don't know what they're in for. That scare tactic might be enough for a supply ship to make it in to base without getting attacked.

[pepsi71ocean]

hat: if we went there for oil why were oil prices so high? it HAD nothing to do with oil.

ALso Bush Senior wanted to go in and take out Saddam but the UN told him NO. Bush Senior was the last of the great War lord presidents, behind FDR, Lincoln, and Washington.

He said if were going to war against Iraq lets do it right.



The MOAB is a good conventional bomb, unfortunately it was designed for WW3 and has no "real" use in a limited war. It was designed to wipe out whole divisions and armored tanks, heck anyone see any craters from those things, :P.

[hat]

Why are the oil prices so high? Because the oil producers are milking it for all it's worth. It's all about profit.

[pepsi71ocean]

Why are the oil prices so high? Because the oil producers are milking it for all it's worth. It's all about profit.

no, no, no... you don't understand anything about the economics of suppy and demand.

yes profiteering does exist, but oil had nothing to do with it. for example how does 2 dollar gas equate to 80 dollar oil? and that same 2 dollar gas the barrels aren't 80 bucks anymore either.

[hat]

42 gallons in an oil drum. 2 dollars a gallon. That's 4 dollars made off of every drum of oil. That's a huge profit when you consider how many gallons a day are sold. Honestly I don't know everything about how the price of oil barrels equate into the price of gas so I really can't say for certian.

[FordGT90Concept]

The MOAB is a good conventional bomb, unfortunately it was designed for WW3 and has no "real" use in a limited war. It was designed to wipe out whole divisions and armored tanks, heck anyone see any craters from those things, :P.
That's what the CBU-97 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon) (Censor Fuzed Weapon) is for. A single CBU-97 can destroy 40 tanks without any collateral damage.


About 3/10 what you spend on fuel is payed to Uncle Sam, about 5/10 goes to refining and transportation, about 1/10 to the store, and 1/10 to corporate. The only reason why the oil industry is so profitable is because everyone needs oil in one form or another on a daily basis. As such, there are over 300 million customers you can depend on. It is practically a money fountain and always has been--until the oil dries up.

Only about 2/3 of a barrel ends up as gasoline which is 28 gallons. Fuel is more expensive in cities because refineries have to go through extra processes and insert additives to meet Clean Air Act requirements (mainly, reduces smog). There's also more demand and less supply so prices tend to be greater without the additives.

Most oil is transported via pipelines. There's a very lengthy delay between product in and product out (many days). If the cost of a barrel of oil changes going in the pipeline, the price at the pump won't be effected for several days.

[pepsi71ocean]

that is because oil prices are futures. oil is sold on the market where investors buy it, as more investors buy oil the more it costs refineries to buy the oil from them+ higher prices.

But fordGT90 has it on the money.

On top of that in the summer refineries are making the winter mix, and in the winter they make the fuel we burn in the summer.