13 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

Doctrine of proportional response would call for a counterattack in kind.

Agreed. We need to start playing hard ball. Enough is enough. 

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 

TAO says hello.

Nobody can actually touch us in this regard. We always have been and will continue to be (for at least the next couple decades) the preeminent cyber super power. Note that the dynamic differs greatly as far as providing conventional military defense vs cyber security defense. And when it comes to private companies investing in enterprise security, US cyber command can only do so much to lead that horse to water. 

The U.S. Should have an entire office building filled with hackers dedicated to cyber attacking Russia and China, every day and demanding ransom as well. Why we sit back and take it is beyond me. I'm sure our cyber attack capabilities are top secret but we never hear news about Russia being attacked. I can only wonder why that is.

1 hour ago, Gannan said:

Agreed. We need to start playing hard ball. Enough is enough. 

 

You can't even really blame Russia at this point. After four years with b|tchboy in office, Vald would've been stupid not to try something.

37 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

The U.S. Should have an entire office building filled with hackers dedicated to cyber attacking Russia and China, every day and demanding ransom as well. Why we sit back and take it is beyond me. I'm sure our cyber attack capabilities are top secret but we never hear news about Russia being attacked. I can only wonder why that is.

You also need to make a distinction between foreign state sponsored activities and those from unaffiliated citizens. As I mentioned, cyber security is unique in that a lone civilian can wield massive amounts of destruction on a private company half way around the world. This dynamic does not exist in the conventional sense. It would be like your next door neighbor deciding he wants to make a tactical nuclear weapon in his garage and use it to wipe out half of a meat packing plant in Moscow at the press of a button.

12 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

You also need to make a distinction between foreign state sponsored activities and those from unaffiliated citizens. As I mentioned, cyber security is unique in that a lone civilian can wield massive amounts of destruction on a private company half way around the world. This dynamic does not exist in the conventional sense. It would be like your next door neighbor deciding he wants to make a tactical nuclear weapon in his garage and use it to wipe out half of a meat packing plant in Moscow at the press of a button.

I wish I was that capable. LOL. 

45 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

 It would be like your next door neighbor deciding he wants to make a tactical nuclear weapon in his garage and use it to wipe out half of a meat packing plant in Moscow at the press of a button.

He should return my socket wrench first.

Great News. 

First Iran's largest warship sinks due to fire and now this. 

Great News. 

First Iran's largest warship sinks due to fire and now this. 

 

Massive fire breaks out at oil refinery near Iran's capital

• 
• 

1 / 2

Iran Fire

Huge smoke rises up from Tehran's main oil refinery as a plane approaches Mehrabad airport south of Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 2, 2021. A massive fire broke out Wednesday night at the oil refinery serving Iran's capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

 

Wed, June 2, 2021, 11:41 AM

 

 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A massive fire broke out Wednesday night at the oil refinery serving Iran's capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. It wasn't immediately clear if there were injuries.

The fire struck the state-owned Tondgooyan Petrochemical Co. to the south of Tehran, said Mansour Darajati, the director-general of the capital's crisis management team.

Firefighters believe it struck a pipeline for liquefied petroleum gas at the facility, Darajati told Iranian state television. He did not elaborate.

15 hours ago, ilross2003 said:

Are you talking about Japanese-Russian War 1904 - 1905? Nah... Eventually, the Russians got them in 1945: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Japanese_War.

Had to wait 40 years, so what? There were times, when they had to wait much longer, like under Mongol Rule for more than 200 years, but the result was always the same.

Russians got them in 45? No, science got Japan in 1945. The Russians were rather weak against the Japanese because they were busy taking care of the Germans, who were only having problems with Russia because they were fighting a two front war. If the Germans didn’t have to worry about the west or Africa, Operation Barbarossa would have been much different. People act like Russia is this ultimate home field advantage. It isn’t. They won two big ones and people act like it’s the Vet. Russia has a history of defeat. 

See also:

War of the Third Coalition. 
War of the Fourth Coalition. 
Crimean War. 
Russo Japanese War.
World War I.

Never mind what the soviets lost in a short span: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Afghanistan x2, Finland. 
 

Then there’s modern Russia that got their a**es handed to them the first time they were rolling around in Chechnya. 

Had no idea this was a thing 

Israeli opposition parties strike coalition deal, paving the way for Netanyahu's exit

http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/gyfVM79NQi0/index.html

On 6/2/2021 at 8:43 PM, Bill said:

Russians got them in 45? No, science got Japan in 1945. The Russians were rather weak against the Japanese because they were busy taking care of the Germans, who were only having problems with Russia because they were fighting a two front war. If the Germans didn’t have to worry about the west or Africa, Operation Barbarossa would have been much different. People act like Russia is this ultimate home field advantage. It isn’t. They won two big ones and people act like it’s the Vet. Russia has a history of defeat. 

See also:

War of the Third Coalition. 
War of the Fourth Coalition. 
Crimean War. 
Russo Japanese War.
World War I.

Never mind what the soviets lost in a short span: Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Afghanistan x2, Finland. 
 

Then there’s modern Russia that got their a**es handed to them the first time they were rolling around in Chechnya. 

They sure had their share of defeats. Like, which country doesn't? My note was that eventually, they do gain the upper hand, even if takes time. How they do it, and what "would have been much different" absolutely do not matter. And I'm talking only about the conflicts that threaten them directly, not about some kind of an outside campaigns like Afghanistan. 

First Chechen War? Really? This is the perfect example for my point! If you are a Chechen who knows the outcome of the Second Chechen War, would you really want to win the First? 

On 6/2/2021 at 8:22 PM, jsdarkstar said:

Great News. 

First Iran's largest warship sinks due to fire and now this. 

Great News. 

First Iran's largest warship sinks due to fire and now this. 

 

Massive fire breaks out at oil refinery near Iran's capital

• 
• 

1 / 2

Iran Fire

Huge smoke rises up from Tehran's main oil refinery as a plane approaches Mehrabad airport south of Tehran, Iran, Wednesday, June 2, 2021. A massive fire broke out Wednesday night at the oil refinery serving Iran's capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)

 

Wed, June 2, 2021, 11:41 AM

 

 

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — A massive fire broke out Wednesday night at the oil refinery serving Iran's capital, sending thick plumes of black smoke over Tehran. It wasn't immediately clear if there were injuries.

The fire struck the state-owned Tondgooyan Petrochemical Co. to the south of Tehran, said Mansour Darajati, the director-general of the capital's crisis management team.

Firefighters believe it struck a pipeline for liquefied petroleum gas at the facility, Darajati told Iranian state television. He did not elaborate.

Have they already accused Israel in both cases?

On 6/3/2021 at 2:13 AM, DaEagles4Life said:

Had no idea this was a thing 

Israeli opposition parties strike coalition deal, paving the way for Netanyahu's exit

http://rss.cnn.com/~r/rss/cnn_topstories/~3/gyfVM79NQi0/index.html

Doesn't look to me that it will hold, this coalition has members with extremely different agendas. They have only one thing in common: "Just Not Bibi". Well, Bibi has gone, what do they have in common now? So I think we are again going to another elections in less than a year.

4 hours ago, ilross2003 said:

They sure had their share of defeats. Like, which country doesn't? My note was that eventually, they do gain the upper hand, even if takes time. How they do it, and what "would have been much different" absolutely do not matter. And I'm talking only about the conflicts that threaten them directly, not about some kind of an outside campaigns like Afghanistan. 

First Chechen War? Really? This is the perfect example for my point! If you are a Chechen who knows the outcome of the Second Chechen War, would you really want to win the First? 

Look how badly the Russians got beat by the Finns, and that was technically their home turf at the time. 
 

The only people that Russia has a history of beating in wars are Russians. 

I believe there’s a theory that says Truman dropped the atomic bombs because he didn’t want Russia to get involved in the war with Japan and complicate negotiations.

16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I believe there’s a theory that says Truman dropped the atomic bombs because he didn’t want Russia to get involved in the war with Japan and complicate negotiations.

The better theory is that the second bomb was a message to the Russians that we could mass produce them.

3 hours ago, TEW said:

The better theory is that the second bomb was a message to the Russians that we could mass produce them.

There's also the part where, you know, the Japanese didn't effing surrender after the first one. They didn't unconditionally surrender after Nagasaki either, but we allowed them to keep the Emperor since we were out of bombs. 

While I agree sending a message to Stalin was another factor, it wasn't the main one. Truman told Stalin about the bomb (or at least hinted at it) at Potsdam, and Stalin's reaction made pretty clear that his spies had already told him we had it. 

And the USSR did get involved and invaded Manchuria -- they actually kept fighting AFTER Japan surrendered for a few days.

7 hours ago, vikas83 said:

There's also the part where, you know, the Japanese didn't effing surrender after the first one. They didn't unconditionally surrender after Nagasaki either, but we allowed them to keep the Emperor since we were out of bombs. 

While I agree sending a message to Stalin was another factor, it wasn't the main one. Truman told Stalin about the bomb (or at least hinted at it) at Potsdam, and Stalin's reaction made pretty clear that his spies had already told him we had it. 

And the USSR did get involved and invaded Manchuria -- they actually kept fighting AFTER Japan surrendered for a few days.

Of course winning the war quickly and decisively was the main factor. A lot of people contend that the quick deployment of the second bomb had ulterior motives, and I’d say if that’s the case, the demonstration of power was at the top of the list.

9 hours ago, vikas83 said:

There's also the part where, you know, the Japanese didn't effing surrender after the first one. They didn't unconditionally surrender after Nagasaki either, but we allowed them to keep the Emperor since we were out of bombs. 

While I agree sending a message to Stalin was another factor, it wasn't the main one. Truman told Stalin about the bomb (or at least hinted at it) at Potsdam, and Stalin's reaction made pretty clear that his spies had already told him we had it. 

And the USSR did get involved and invaded Manchuria -- they actually kept fighting AFTER Japan surrendered for a few days.

Pretty sure Truman threatened to drop a third bomb on Japan (even though we didn’t actually have one).

Weren't we also firebombing the ish outta tokyo and other cities? It's not like there was any doubt as to the outcome, just a question of how much blood needed to be spilled to get there. An invasion of the mainland would've be brutal, and I'm glad we didn't have to get to that point. That being said, I still don't think using those kind of weapons on those cities was justified. 

29 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Weren't we also firebombing the ish outta tokyo and other cities? It's not like there was any doubt as to the outcome, just a question of how much blood needed to be spilled to get there. An invasion of the mainland would've be brutal, and I'm glad we didn't have to get to that point. That being said, I still don't think using those kind of weapons on those cities was justified. 

The firebombing of Tokyo started in the Spring of 1945.  They dropped the atomic bombs in August (pretty much as soon as they were ready).

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The firebombing of Tokyo started in the Spring of 1945.  They dropped the atomic bombs in August (pretty much as soon as they were ready).

Yeah I'm saying dropping the fat man and little boy were not the only operations that hit soft targets and caused massive civilian casualties. Could they have been avoided? Maybe, maybe not. But I kinda feel like we didn't really try and were too eager to use something that should've been a last resort.

1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Weren't we also firebombing the ish outta tokyo and other cities? It's not like there was any doubt as to the outcome, just a question of how much blood needed to be spilled to get there. An invasion of the mainland would've be brutal, and I'm glad we didn't have to get to that point. That being said, I still don't think using those kind of weapons on those cities was justified. 

It prevented literally millions of extra casualties. It was unquestionably the right choice. This was a world war. It wasn't some little foreign adventurism where you D around. Nuking Japan was the most efficient, effective and timely way possible to win the war decisively and it had the added benefit of saving countless lives on both sides.

48 minutes ago, TEW said:

It prevented literally millions of extra casualties. It was unquestionably the right choice. This was a world war. It wasn't some little foreign adventurism where you D around. Nuking Japan was the most efficient, effective and timely way possible to win the war decisively and it had the added benefit of saving countless lives on both sides.

I get that we only had two, so we can't squander them, but I'm not sure the choice of targets with those types of weapons was the best. Admittedly, I'm not immersed in the history there to know if there were more appropriate targets, and I know that we avoided kyoto for its religious and cultural significance, but the amount of civilians killed can't allow me to not question it. And yeah I know I'm doing this through the luxury of hindsight from an era where certain types of warfare (e.g. chemical weapons) are forbidden now when they weren't then, and yes obviously war is hell and that was the worst in history but, I don't know, I just can't help but wonder if there was a middle ground between bombing those cities and a mainland invasion. Maybe there wasn't, but we'll never know.

4 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Admittedly, I'm not immersed in the history

You don’t say. 

Can anyone explain how Germany is so mad at Russia about that Belarus guy that they shut down air traffic coming from Russia but they’re not so mad that they’re still allowing that pipeline to go through?