Phx The War Room: Open Forum

Mick and ZOO I have a friend who is a Cathloic Appologetic and he has helped me learn more about the deeper foundations of Catholicism then I ever knew existed. I am not an adherant of the faith but I see the validity of it as a means for spiritual growth. It's tenets are beautiful if taken as more than what is commonly believed by the layman, as I was before learning from my friend. I respect the true believer of any faith, as Zoo said, but only as long as it's an educated decision and not blind faith, like you said, Mick. I agree.

I hope you won't be hesitant to discuss your beliefs, whatever they may be, here with us, Mick. I want this to be an open forum where you won't be bashed for your beliefs but can discuss them and maybe we can all learn and grow from each other. I hope you'll participate. I know you have much to say and could bring much to the table.

Change of topic... So, what do you guys think about North Korea claiming to have made weapon's grade plutonium? What should our stance be on their production of nuclear weapons?

 

I should get Grimby in here to discuss that.... Seeing as he is stationed in Korea at the moment

 

That would be cool. Several national security advisors, like former defense sec. William Perry, believe we might be heading for war as early as this year if the administration can't get a handle on the diplomatic negotiations and stop Kim Il from continuing the WMD program. Even China is trying to push N. Korea into talks on preventing the increase of WMD. Of course, all this is going to do is show countries that all they have to do is pick up their WMD programs and they can pressure the US into giving them financial relief and remove ecconomic sanctions. Just like the Palesine/Isreali situation. The Palestinians can use terrorism to bring about their current global pressure to form a state, which just says to the world that terrorism works.

 

It always has

 

Terrorism works on a limited scale but our aquiessence to thier demands only reinforces their belief that what they are doing is right and that they can continue to achieve their aims with it's use.

I don't know about you, but I'm really getting tired of seeing the USofA being slandered all around the world because of what we're doing. But when people want help or they need money, etc., who do they call? Us, of course. but then they spit in our face. I'm just tired of it. People suck. For the most part.

Don't get me wrong, I both argee and disagree with many of the choices of our administration and I support the effort to bring about change in the world for the better. It's just the negativity that gets shot back at us for everything we seem to do. I wish they would show more of the positive side of things and all of the people we've helped.

 

But it's so much easier to focus on the negative and to criticize than to accept the mistakes with the successes and try to accomplish something. Given that the former is easier why would anyone want to do anything else?

 

Positive reinforcement may be the ideal, but when you look at the reality we live in, negative reinforcement gets the most attention. I don't see anyone telling the Swedes what a fantastic education system they've developed and giving them accolades and awards for it... But I do see us sending money into the Middle East to try and stabilize that untenable situation.

No one was helping the Dutch when they began to take in the Jewish refugees during WWII, but I did see the UK and the rest of Europe trying to pacify Hitler's agressions in the hopes that he would become satisfied w/ what he had.

Sadly, terrorism, in it's many forms, has always been the quickest way to effect change and get what is wanted.

 

I think the problem w/ N. Korea is that they aren't building them for themselves... But as an industry for the highest bidder... They've proven in the past that they could care less who they sell their manufactured weapons good to, or where they are going for that matter.

 

Honestly, I think North Korea is dangerous, and a threat to our national security. Why? Because its leader is borderline psychotic, and his regime is a sadistic one. Reading about the concentration camps there is like reading about camps from Nazi Germany, except that the year is 2003, not 1943. If Kim Jong Il feels that he's going down, I don't think he'd hesitate to strike against the United States (or South Korea).

 

[off_topic]KW how do you like the discussion in this forum? [/off_topic]

I happen to agree, Il is not one of the most stable rulers in the world,a nd the power that he has at his disposal makes more than a threa to the US, but the whole world. His obession w/ weapons productions could de-stabilize the entire world, not just his small corner.

 

It's a great deal more civil than what I'm used to .

 

Kim Long Il has already made it perfectly clear in one statement make last November, that he has no qualms about using WMD. He has said that he'd fire his nuclear weapons at US targets if we so much as thought about military action against his country. He made it perfectly clear that they were withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty agreement and have done so. He said they have converted hundreds of spent fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium and, according to our best sources, he has done some, if not all, he's said. I'd say we have a very volitile situation on our hands. If N. Korea were to convert all of their 8000+ spent fuel rods into weapons grade plutonium, they'd have enough for about ten nuclear weapons. I wonder what they'd do with those...

 

Stinkin' double posts.

 

Now, I don't know a whole lot about this N. Korea bit, but it just goes to show that mankind as a whole is uncapable of handling authority. "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Whether it be through terrorism, threats, WMD programs or militarization, too often people in authority manipulate their position for their own personal gain, to satisfy their pride or selfishness or their desire to force their will upon others. At any rate, what we have in this forum, mutual respect for varying ideas and beliefs; tolerance and acceptance, is more mature and responsible than a good portion of the political leaders of the world. It really is sad. The old addage "Power corrupts; Absolute Power corrupts absolutely" really is true. I think that this situation with N. Korea is yet another example of someone who has gained a bit of control in his portion of his world, is unsatisfied, and wants dominion over more.

 

I think we, as Americans, can't really fully understand the magnitude of the position that the North Koreans find themselves in now. They are an impoverished nation, stirpped of their ecconomic viability by years of military development without significant export sales. Their people have no money, no voice, no power, no weapons, no will. The government rules with an iron fist and dictates all that goes on in that little country. They are known for their weapons manufacturing and sales to anyone with the money to buy them. They are known for their support of terrorist groups through weapons sales and harboring. The list goes on and on of what it's like over there. Their world is so much different than ours.

The point of this is that we aren't helping things (we being the US as an entity of politics) by forcing North Koreas hand on this issue AND not doing anything about their WMD program yet. It's a situation that's getting well beyond the point of no return.

I don't think we should capitulate to their demands for bilateral talks with the US alone or that we should give them aid or anything in order to stop their WMD program. Far from it. I think we should do something a littel more substantial than what we're currently doing and not let it get any further. If North Korea won't talk unless its bilateral only and refuses to engage in multilateral talks with a board of countries that are involved, then that just tells me they have another agenda of which we should have no part. Even China has stepped up their political negotiations with the US, Rusia and North Korea (don't get me started on why Russia is in the talks at all, duplicitous !@#$%@$s).

 

I have a question: Why is it that we can use satelites to probe beneathe the surface of the earth's crust, report soil composition from anywhere on the planet and relay it to another location anywhere on the planet, but we can't seem to find landmines through just six inches of dirt?

The government organization that's responsible for our satelite intelligence is called the NGA, the National Geospatial-intelligence Agency (used to be NIMA). The NGA is what keeps our military so informed and provides 3-D maps and intelligence to commanders in the field (and at base ops) about everything from building heights, shapes, distances, ground composition, last known cell phone communications, and a whole crap load more. They gave maps of exact tank locations of the Iragi forces to our troops in their tanks as well as pinpointed the locations of each and every cell phone communication that went on between their commanders. So, why can't we simply find where all the land mines are in places where children in Afganistan, for instance, can't play without fear of tripping some old mine laid during the Afgan War with the old Soviet Union? Among all of the other things that could be done with them?

 

Because they're SMALL. Most landmines aren't even a foot across. True, you can find a tank easily, but that's TONS worth of steel, not to mention the immense amount of exhaust heat from each one. As it is, to create a view useful enough for finding moving tanks, you have to scan a HUGE area, and they only show up as specks.

Those neat-o pics of Area 51 are nice, but those had to be zoomed in on, and a satellite is only above an area that small for a fraction of a second.

We COULD use the satellites to scan every single square foot of earth to find landmines, but that's all you could zoom in on -- and you'd only be able to scan the surface when the satellite passed over. It'd take YEARS to fully scan each area, when those satellites could be used for other more useful things like finding fake bioweapons plants and non-existent missile silos.

 

Not true, brother. A satelite could read the newspaper you're reading (depending on the type, that is). It can scan beneath the surface of the earth for ores and specific radiations, such as those from heat of multiple bodies in caves, etc. I won't enumerate the many ways a satelite could be used, just that it is far greater than you are stating here. The pictures of Area 51 that you mentioned aren't the ONLY pictures of the area and were taken from a satelite that wasn't military, though it is tasked for some government operations. There are satelite photos of people and they are identifiable by these pictures, without computer enhancement. This is just to show that satelites are much more powerful than you think. And because of the limited nature of the satelites placement over a given area, that doesn't deter me from thinking that we should still do it. Besides, it's a small matter of tasking a satelite to stay in geosynchronous orbit over any spot. We do it all the time. So, it's not an impossible request for something like using them for landmine detection.

If you know something about satelites that I don't then please let me know. I'd love to learn more.

 

Well, I know lots about satellites...but nothing you can't find on the net through a search engine. I was this close *squeezes fingers together* to getting to write a couple UNIX subroutines for a CU satellite project a couple years ago until they sank the project because of funding. Oh well. My bots had to stay here on Earth.

And we're both on the same page -- I KNOW satellites can read stuff here on the ground, and see bugs and stuff, but you missed the part about having to scan every single square foot of earth. We can pick out anything we WANT to, but we're at the mercy of what we can do within a given amount of time. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack -- sure, we can see needles just fine, but combing thru an entire haystack takes time -- it takes even more time when the area is the size of the Middle East.

While we COULD do it, it's sort of a waste of resources -- the gubmint likes to spy on people instead of save people.

And I dunno if you knew this about satellites, but when you see stars that twinkle more than usual, and in different colors, and move slightly faster than stars (but are MUCH smaller than planes), sometimes it's a satellite. Most of the times it's just space junk, but you can sometimes catch a real satellite. We haven't been able to catch any with a telescope, though -- thems boogers is fast.

 

just wanted to drop a line in here to say...
i am very proud of you guys for keeping a respectful attitude in this potentially volatile topic(s)...

carry on...

oh, and in case you were wondering...there is NO WAY i'm jumping into this conversation...

 

[Off the topic a bit - but inquiring minds want to know]

This may be unanswerable in laymans terms, but how can a satellite detect, with any accuracy, soil composition? I can understand using infared to detect bodies in caves or even machinery and whatever else, but what method is used to determine soil composition? Also, what volume of soil (or surface area and depth) is "sampled" at a time; I am curious as to how precise the readings can be. I know we can get locations of objects within inches - I work for a company that makes satellite transmitters for wildlife tracking and related research - but could a satellite find a pop can in the sand or would it have to be a tank to be noticeable?

 

Spectrometers, if I'm not mistaken... every element gives off a different spectrographic reading... Thus, by looking at the pretty colors, you can tell what it is Over simplifying, of course, but pretty close (I'm just not sure of the name of the equipment).

 

You got the right name there ZOO. There are different versions, but it is really a fairly simple thing to accomplish. I've frequently used a UV-visual light spec the idea being to shoot UV light through it and see what wavelengths (colors) are transmitted and which are absorbed

And wardenx, thanks for the encouragement. I'm not ashamed of my beliefs or anything. But from experience I know it can get overwhelming discussing them when I'm the one Catholic in a large group