Jump to content
Bohemia Interactive Forums

-Snafu-

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1739

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Medals

Posts posted by -Snafu-

  3. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    In 1945, Britain still sourced it's external food requirements from the Commonwealth countries, not Europe.

    in 1955 rationing had absolutely nothing to do with available food supply any more than it did in 1940, it did not take Europe 10 years to agriculturally recover and the Commonwealths infrastructure was never destroyed.

    In WW2, the problem was not the availability of food supply, it was getting it here past all the Uboats and also.. paying for it.

    The U.K.'s trade dependancy on Europe is a relatively modern occourance. Food dependancy in particular is a new one brought on by EU regulation.

    There was no famine in the UK during WW2, but all it would have taken was a crop failure at that time and there would have been.

    There was quite a serious food crisis in post war Europe and you will find it mentioned in almost any general history of WW2. You underestimate the damage caused by WW2. Continental Europe became a battleground where millions of people died (labour shortage) and production was very adversely effected.

    In 1939 the UK had to bring in 70% of its food from overseas but the push for agricultural production meant that this could be brought down to the bare minimum (Source: Storm of War by Andrew Roberts). At this moment I am looking at a Cabinet report from April 1945 where the colonies and dominions were suffering food shortages of their own. I don't have my hands on the necessary documents but it seems to me that Brazil, the US and Argentina were more important than the empire during the war and immediate post-war period as food producers. (Source: REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH 1945 FOR THE DOMINIONS, INDIA, BURMA AND THE COLONIES AND MANDATED TERRITORIES)

    With agricultural production in Europe ruined supplies were brought across from the Atlantic but many rations in the German urban centres were well below 1,000 calories per day. Only in 1948 did food rations begin to improve. (Source: The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze) Indeed, a Cabinet report produced in February 1945 stated that, 'Of the chief foods only wheat will be available in abundance. Meat, canned fish, fats, sugar and dairy produce (butter, cheese, canned milk and milk powder) will, in face of increasing demands, be in shorter supply than ever before.' (Source: WORLD FOOD SUPPLIES, 1945. MEMORANDUM BY THE MINISTER OF FOOD)

    It really did take years for the world to recover post-1945. The post-war period was quite bloody despite the lack of a war. Still, I am at a loss as to why this is being discussed as it has no relation to the famine in the DPRK.

    My observations on the sources of the NK famine come from the interviews I have seen given by North Koreans.

    There are interviews of people who say the opposite. These are just individual perspectives, however, and do not give you a big picture. The life of a party member in Pyongyang is completely different to that of a rural farmer. I would appreciate it if you could post these interviews.

    I haven't read any studies.

    Why not? They are pretty interesting and useful.

    I listened to people who had reason to know, and what they said was making sense. Given that it broadly mirrored what I had learnt of the Ukrainian and Ethopian famines and what you have just told me about the Irish one.

    It 'makes sense' despite the fact you openly admit your knowledge of the DPRK is limited? As with WW2 these events that are not directly comparable.

    Bearing in mind the state of political repression in North Korea, the fact that they were openly allowed to criticise the NK government (who they described as "we") as the greatest factor in this, and that this part of the interview was not censored by the state, leads me to believe that what they said was probably true.

    They have no reason to lie other than fear of state reprisal and clearly the state of NK offers none for this subject and openly recognises it's mistakes. Despite whatever studies you may have read, I truely believe that the people best positioned to understand the causes of the that famine where those people it happened to.

    The DPRK openly admitted they were in the middle of a famine in 1996 in order to receive food aid from the world (including ROK). They are still quite reliant on food aid to this day.

    With great respect, studies conducted by NK's enemies, SK and America into this are probably the most bias and least credable ones I could imaginably expect to read.

    In what way are the authors of these studies the DPRKs enemies?

    Also the ones with the least available information to base their judgements on. Nk is not reknowned for it's co-operation with enemy intelligence agencies.

    I am not sure what these international studies have to do with intelligence agencies. Perhaps you can shed some light on this?

    I would also concur that the NK government was not willing to give up the level of control it has over it's country in return for foreign food relief. But then.. neither was Churchill.

    They received, in fact still receiving, food aid from other nations. Loosening political control was not a condition to be met to receive aid.

    They are proper commies. All in it together.

    Evidently not as you say below.

    The urbanites certainly get better treatment than the peasants. Living in Pyonyang is a privildge. They have a class system, peasant class, academic class, military class etc.
    But I will hold with my observation. There is no obvious signs of long term malnitrition in North Koreans. No physical deformities. Rickets etc. Not in the cities and not in the villages. As bad the famine was, it clearly didn't last too long. If you look at pictures of Ethiopians for example they are often all bow legged and hobbled. Their famine must have been much more severe.

    Your observation is based on nothing but a few interviews. As you said earlier information is not readily available so I am surprised as to how you can come to this conclusion.

  5. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    I don't think any one of those circumstances alone is enough to cause a famine. So the famine in NK didn't happen becuase the government deliberately starved the people in preference of buying weapons. It happened because they fluffed their agricultural reforms and the crops failed and they wrere under trade sanctions (so they could buy much externally/earn foreign currency) and they were in state of war/under threat of war so they still needed to maintain an expensive military.

    Neither do I agree that they put large amounts of their populations at risk to pursue a military policy during a famine. It is equally arguable that their population was still at risk from external military threat at this time. The yearly war games off their coast didn't all stop out of respect for them when their crops failed.

    I think it's quite reasonable to assume that they in fact did what they thought they had to do to protect their citizens at this time.

    I am more interested in what in-depth studies think on the matter rather than someone who has thought about the subject for 30 seconds and passes off what he thinks as fact.

    Problems in production have been compounded by difficulties in distribution and in the use of output. Shortages of fuel and spare parts for vehicles have hampered distribution. At the same time, some outside observers have questioned the uses to which output has been put: scarce cereals appear to continue to be used to produce luxury products such as noodles, urban areas with high concentrations of Korean Workers Party (KWP) members and government officials have received preferential allocations, and it has been claimed that military stockpiling continues. The end result of these difficulties has been a secular deterioration in food production and, in the absence of additional imports, a deterioration in the food balance.

    Despite the desperate situation internally, the government maintains the most militarized society on earth, with more than one million men (and increasingly women) under arms, and estimated 25 percent of GDP devoted to military expenditures (US ACDA 1997). This point is reinforced if one believes that certain military or military-related expenditures are hidden in the economic development budget. Estimates of North Korean military manpower and equipment do not reveal anything like this economic decline over the relevant period. Indeed, US and South Korean defense ministry figures show a slight increase in North Korean military deployment during this period. This suggests that the non-military part of the economy is

    being severely squeezed.

    pp. 1-2.

    From:

    FAMINE IN NORTH KOREA:Causes and Cures

    Marcus Noland

    Institute for International Economics

    Sherman Robinson

    International Food Policy Research Institute

    Tao Wang

    Institute for International Economics

    http://www.iie.com/publications/wp/99-2.pdf

    The country could improve food availability by freeing up resources currently devoted to the military, but as long as the country pursues “military-first†politics, this is unlikely.

    It is not at all clear that the current leadership is willing to countenance the erosion of state control that would accompany the degree of marketization necessary to revitalize the economy.

    pp. 26-27.

    Famine and Reform in North Korea

    Marcus Noland

    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.145.4829&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    While the desire to maintain power and diversion of resources to military policies are not the only causes (I never said they were), most things have a number of causes, however, they are without a doubt key reasons.

    As a historical comparison, I would cite to you Great Britain in WW2. Starved by military blockade, we still spent a load of money on our war effort instead of food. We didn't consider this to be putting ourselves at risk so much as protecting ourselves from a deadly enemy at any cost.

    Your comparison is flawed. Different time and circumstances.

    There was no famine. Furthermore, the UK was facing a possible invasion. National survival was at stake. DPRK was not about to be invaded by the ROK. It was not fighting a war for national survival.

    There is a closer parallel with NK in the ten year period after 1945 when GB continued to ration food with war time portions in order to fund our nuclear weapons program.

    Quite simply we were more scared of Soviet aggression than we were hungry.

    Like Nk our domestic food prioduction in GB is unable to support our population. Unlike NK, we aren't under massive trade embargo. We have the same problems here, but we are not so vulnerable to it all going wrong at the same time... in no small part because of our effective expeditionary military forces.

    The main reason there was a food shortage from 1945 onwards was that Europe had been devastated by WW2. People were killed, industry was destroyed and agricultural production slumped. It had very little to do with developing nuclear weapons which began as early as late 1945, long before the Cold War was in effect.

  6. Posted

    Everyone who read 'Mein Kampf' with a clear mind knew what kind of person Hitler was. Although this book is close to unreadable (Almost no structure, horrible mental leaps etc.) his intentions become clear. I gave up after ~150 pages (I read Goethe's Faust in a few days). But thats enough to know that he was a maniac.

    Don't want to drag the thread OT.

    We know now what he was like but the people at the time did not. Mein Kampf was not a blueprint or schedule for his plans and politicians often say one thing and do the other. The demand for the majority German Sudetenland was seen as reasonable and not the actions of a madman. Furthermore, there was no way Britain and France would shape their foreign policy on his book. A PM would have an incredibly difficult time justifying a war against Germany in 1938 on the basis of one of the books he wrote.

    For the record, famines have occoured in the west too. Ireland for example...

    I am not denying horrible stuff has not happened in 'the west' (I dislike that generic term that constantly changes meaning). A famine in Ireland (it did not only effect Ireland FYI) that occurred 100+ years ago in a different time period in completely different circumstances cannot be used to justify the actions of modern NK.

    My point is that NK is willing to put large parts of its population at risk so it can pursue military development. Not many people flee from SK to NK.

  7. Posted

    You can't compare WW2 to the current situation. Completely different times and circumstances.

    The world 'sat on its collective ass' because it couldn't see into the future and judging them with what we now know is silly. The mass casualties of WW1 was still fresh in the minds of people of Europe and nobody wanted that to happen again. They all thought Hitler was a rational man and the demand to have the majority German Sudetenland seemed reasonable. I say again they did not know what would happen in the future so judging them with what we now know is stupid. Only post-Munich did the leaders of France, UK and Poland realise that Hitler could not be trusted. Churchill could afford to be a voice in the woods in the 1930s because he was not in a position of political power. Not that hew knew what Hitler was really like.

    The only direct similarity with Munich and the current situation (I really don't know why they are being compared in the first place) is that the people and governments do not want to see millions die.

    Nobody 'give a shit' about NK because a conflict would result in millions of casualties and lots of damage to SK, NK and economies of the world. Not so much is at stake, compared to WW2, and the costs outweigh the benefits.

    The west is 'morally superior' in that they are not totalitarian states and don't starve their people. Just because you don't agree with wars in Afghanistan and Iraq doesn't make NK any better.

  8. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Baff1, for 4 years we have had to put with your posts. They are odd, poorly structured, light on facts and evidence and often make little sense.

    Do what that well known poster of the WW2 soldier holding the canteen is asking. You will be doing humanity a favour.

    EDIT

    OK, I was an arsehole earlier. My apologies.

    There was too much opinion and not enough facts. A war would not be in the interest of SK. Although a conventional conflict might not last long and it would be a victory for the US and SK it would costs millions in lives and millions in damage.

    I don't understand how one can say there is no moral side to this. Some conflicts don't have moral sides, some do. This is one of them. The NK leadership is willing to sacrifice some of its population in order to maintain its power. The dictatorship, camps and starvation gives a clear moral side to this. While SK does not have a squeaky clean past it is now a functioning and stable representative democracy.

    There were other dubious claims with the WW2 areas presented in this thread but I leave it since it's OT.

  10. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    My point is that North Korea's capabilities are often grossly exaggerated, leading to doomsday scenarios such as that of Seoul being kept hostage, with every artillery piece being aimed at it and them being able to grind the city into a glass crater in moments. It is both impossible for the overwhelming majority of NK's artillery from within the present borders of the nation (and getting into range is no mean feat thanks to the wide Imjin river) and stupid in a tactical and strategic sense.

    Nobody is saying anything about doomsday but that the North has the ability to inflict heavy casualties against the South in terms of lives and property damage. The US and South Korean governments (see report I posted earlier) believe this to be highly likely as well as military experts and defence think tanks. In addition to military targets and other close urban centres 5,000 artillery shells are estimated by the US military to hit the SK capital within 24 hours of hostilities. That's quite a lot. You forget that it's not just Seoul that is of concern but the whole of South Korea. Millions of soldiers, civilians and foreign troops, will die.

    You paint a potential war as some sort of cake walk. The South Korean government obviously disagrees, otherwise they would issue harsher responses to these provocations. They are quite rightly concerned with the death and destruction that would be inflicted upon their country in the event of a war.

    You forget that the AAA is near obsolete against any kind of modern jet airplane. They might be able to keep a Mustang and B-17 raid in check but not F-18s and F-16s that can easily do wild weasel missions on most of the AA units.

    The AAA systems are obviously not state of the art. I'm not saying they can wipe an allied air force out of the sky but they do need to be destroyed. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of these sites and they have the ability to put a lot into the air. It would probably require hundreds of strikes to degrade AAA capability. This will eat up a lot of available assets and time. As USAF Col. Steven R. Prebeck (promoted since he wrote it) states in his report on a possible strike on North Korea:

    'Along with their fighter force, the North Koreans have an elaborate AAA and surface-to-air missile (SAM) capability, although it is mostly concentrated on their southern border...Any other option requires a sustained campaign involving the removal of air defenses.'

    'Considering the uncertainty introduced by providing warning and including North Korean air defenses, the target base increases tremendously...Finally, air defenses would have to be destroyed to ensure freedom of access to targets.'

    This would require a lengthy build up of air assets which is problematic if NK should launch a 'surprise' attack which it may have the ability to do considering the amount of units stationed at the border. The bulk of US airpower would not be in theatre during the crucial early stages of such a conflict.

    Preventive Attack in the 1990s?

    STEVEN R. PREBECK, MAJOR, USAF

    School of Advanced Airpower Studies

    http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/9305prebeck.pdf

    Back to the main point. A war wouldn't be easy, it would see millions of casualties and cost billions.

    I think the south has access to M270's so they can likely pose just as viable a thread to the north if not a bit more with their own arsenal.

    I'm not saying that SK would be a push over, far from it, both sides would suffer greatly in a war. Both armies possess the ability to inflict a great deal of damage upon each other. Underestimating this ability is, IMHO, dangerous. Thankfully, US and SK generals and politicians agree that a conflict would be a bloody mess and not something like Desert Storm.

    id just nuke the bastards wipe em off the map then see what they can do about it ^^ make sure that just after the nukes detonate there is an aerial strike force in place to take out any counter missile silos ... best time to nuke? when they do a huge military parade with loads of their forces and leaders watching so you know they will be wiped out

    In the 1950s and 1960s US generals and politicians discussed the possible use of nuclear weapons in local conflicts. There are good reasons they never resorted to such potentially catastrophic measures.

  11. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Here is something to alleviate those beliefs:

    http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-%282009

    The antiquated air force, AA and artillery are easy prey for air assaults and satellites, and carrying out the Seoul bombardment with the few artillery pieces that can do it after the bluff is called will only further worsen North Korea's military (using assets on non-military targets) and political (deliberately killing civilians) situation. Don't doubt for a second that the known artillery hardpoints within any kind of range will be the first targets of South Korea's military.

    I'm not sure what you're point is. The war would be costly in lives.

    US and South Korean civilian and military casualty estimates run into the millions if a general war breaks out. The AAA assets and artillery are not easy targets either. The author of that thread you linked also details AAA positions, of which there are a hell of a lot, and these would need to be suppressed or destroyed before taking action against other fortified positions which are not very easy to destroy.

    Since the 1980s, North Korea has built up its forces within 60 miles of the DMZ to roughly 65 percent of its total units and 80 percent of its total estimated firepower, a 1998 assessment judged. This compares to 45 percent of its total units in 1984.

    U.S. military estimates in 1994 were that those artillery pieces could bombard Seoul with 5,000 rounds in the first 24 hours of any attack.

    South Korea’s hesitancy to engage in warfare with the North can justifiably partly be attributed to concern about casualties and damage to itself. Casualties in such a conflict would be in the hundreds of thousands, and damage to the infrastructure of the Peninsula in the billions of dollars. The political and economic effects of such a war would reverberate around the region for decades. When the United States was making serious preparations to go to war with the DPRK in May 1994, senior military leaders gave estimates to President Bill Clinton that predicted 52,000 U.S. military personnel killed and wounded, along with 490,000 South Korean military casualties, in the first 90 days, as well as ‘enormous’ DPRK and civilian casualties. A month later, in June 1994, the then U.S. commander-in-chief on the Peninsula, Gen. Gary Luck, estimated in the process of preparing war plans that as many as a million people might be killed if war broke out, including 80,000-100,000 Americans; the war would cost the United States more than $100 billion; and the destruction and interruption of business would cost a trillion dollars to the countries involved and their immediate neighbours.

    All from a report by the Center for Defense Information on what could happen in another Korean war.

    http://www.cdi.org/north-korea/north-korea-crisis.pdf

  12. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Hmm

    An Aircraft Carrier Groups ability to project power may not be all it is cracked up to be.

    Obviously, aircraft carriers are not the be all and end all of naval warfare, however, there are only three reasons to have an aircraft carrier. Those reasons are power projection, power projection and power projection. If you can't project a significant amount of military power anywhere in the globe then you are not a superpower. Submarines and ICBMs are useless against land assets under threat from, say, militia or another nation. To secure them China would need to deploy troops and those troops need air cover and that means they need a mobile airfield, in other words, an aircraft carrier! It will have to deploy troops overseas and you can't do that without an aircraft carrier. It is only in the early stages of carrier development and if it wants to be a superpower it needs that power projection ability or it will never be able to defend its future significant overseas interests.

    The 'superpowers' of the Cold War were the US and USSR. 'Superpowers' in that they were the only two nations able to match each other politically, militarily and economically around the globe. The Chinese aren't quite there yet. A nation can't be a superpower on economic power alone.

  13. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    +1 On that.

    Kind Regards walker

    Not quite there yet. Only when it has large aircraft carriers and the ability to project military power at any point in the globe will it be one. It may have economic power but it needs military power to back it up. A bit like the USA in the early 20th Century. Economically powerful but not much of a military power bar the USN.

  15. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    that is why i said theoretically.

    Yeah, theoretically anything can happen. The scenario carries too many risks though.

    Come on, if Sarah Palin can hunt big bears in Alaska, Im sure The US and Russia could have a barney there.

    Obviously I don't know for sure as I haven't looked into it, but looking beyond a tactical perspective like we have in ArmA, does Alaska have the necessary infrastructure to support large military units? Same goes for that area of Russia. Logistics would be a major headache I'd imagine. The weather and terrain don't make for a nice combination either.

  16. Posted

    An agreement maybe (if that was ever the case)? Either way to say this is not a missile and ignore it is quite amazing (talking generally).

    I don't understand why the US would agree to let China fire a missile off its coast. I can't see that it serves any purpose.

    perhaps you missed my point i made earlier theoretically (I cannot stress that enough, Theoretically) if it was a chinese missile fired from US waters, where would it land? for arguements sake Russia. You say China is in a major military development stage so obviously going to war with america or russia is a bad option. So what is the answer? you get russia and america to fight each other while you sit back and win a war without even fighting it.

    You have to remember the relationship between america and russia has always been dodgy, even today, they will never fully trust each other without having the safety switch off the big red button so you try and see how America tries to convince russia that it was not them that launched even though the missile was launched from USA waters

    Where and how would the US an Russia fight? It can't be conventional as the Russian armed forces are in no state for any long term major offensive and US forces are bogged down in two wars in far off places. They also don't share a land border and the areas that are closest are not well suited to large scale troop movements.

    It would most likely go nuclear and would certainly not be confined to just those two. The whole world would be dragged into it.

  17. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Reasons? Why would China sail up to the US and fire off a missile, an act of war, when it's armed forces are in the middle of major development? It wants to send a message of strength? There are less dangerous and stupid ways to do that (military exercises, parades and the like). Plus, when a nation wants to flex its muscles it makes sure it gets the credit. The media does love bad news. Try watching a 24 hour news channel all day. You'll want to kill yourself by the end of it.

  18. Posted

    ...to go home to FOB and rearm. Running around screaming and trying to stab is no option....this kind of thinking lead to horendous casualties in WW1 when some british generals still considered bajonet assaults to be usefull tactic.

    out of ammo out of action...simple. Retreat is really a usefull option... suicide is a bit off if you're not a Zero Pilot in 1945.

    The First Rule of Modern Warfare: Never Bring a Knife to a Gunfight *Col Richard Szafranski, USAF, Retired*

    1. Run down to the library, grab a book on WW1 infantry tactics and Gary Sheffield's Forgotten Victory.

    2. Adding knives and/or bayonets will not turn ArmA 2 into COD.

  19. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Trolling sir? One thread at a time, its best.

    How about as simple as a missile launched? That would fit the profile, unless its a jet that got fired out of the sea into the air causing an arc into the sky and left a low altitude contrail forming from 0 ground level, is that easier to fit the profile?

    I love the sarcasm and cynical comments yet all you actually see is a missile launch (by the profile and any other given example), if US military admitted it, would the profile then be a missile in peoples brains? Or if no one admits it, the profile is now a jet and contrail or a conspiracy to bury in "no matter land". Mainstream news fits when it suits, or otherwise there is a reason it doesn't, or its sarcasm time.

    If a missile hits the U.S (Not suggesting this literally just example) and no one admits it ... does it then become a comet from space? Or speculation that ends in conspiracy land and laughter all round?

    I think the worry of a missile = threat so it must be joked off, when all people are saying is "something" was launched and "missile" could be a number of things.

    Although to contradict myself I still think its Oprah Farting :)

    No, not trolling. Just some friendly ribbing.

    I'm willing to wait for more facts to come in before jumping to conclusions, but hey, why let common sense stand in the way of fanciful conspiracy theories revolving around dodgy Tom Clancy novels and China trying to start WW3 for no apparent reason?

  20. Posted · Edited by Snafu

    Perfectly falling into the trap ... mmwaahahahahahaaaaa! ;)

    Its an open case, and all sources are relevant to compare, rest assured the mainstream will sugar coat it, probably a "weather balloon on fire" or Oprah farted, will come at some stage :)

    One version and one source.

    ---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html#ixzz14vxJo8vS

    From November 10th 2007

    Yes, it's quite obviously a nuclear explosion despite the fact that it is nothing like a nuclear explosion. :p :rolleyes:

    Perhaps it is something simple. On October 13 people in New York spotted some balloons in the sky and reported them as UFOs. Yes, they were just balloons.

  23. Posted

    One of the more realistic aspects of any post-battle scenario I would think would be the clean-up. Maybe some sort of automated body retrieval system, like a medical M113 that scoots around clearing up the mess. Plus, maybe an identification/tagging of your squad units who have fallen. It always seems to be slightly artificial in that when a squad member dies, you simply leave him behind without even a radio notification.

    I know this sort of moves into the realm of "so realistic it stops being fun" if it were to get too involved, but I think the automation of body retrieval would be kind of cool.

    IIRC I think the US Civil War mod for OFP had something similar to this. A couple medics with a stretcher would go and pick up the wounded then take them back to the field hospital. I'm sure I remember something like that, the stretcher bearers were definitely there.

  24. Posted

    But you can by not watching videos putting a case for nuclear detonation forward and not watching it or looking at it further, which does put a case of evidence forward for it, hence the reason I posted it to view and take as you find, you cant have found this as you clearly couldn't have watched it as you are already speaking of out of hand dismissal.

    Who's fact ... you know for a fact 100 percent that it isn't, you only agree to this conclusion from the evidence presented becuase its evidence more logical to you (subjective still) than someone else, that's my point all along, if it was so ever perfectly cut and dried we wouldn't have the outstanding things we still have today, the subject is still a hot topic to this day.

    Don't worry about my points, have a look and watch it, your head wont blow up or anything :) Why is it down to a forum poster to suddenly be a lawyer and prove a case, do people need spoon feeding or something? I dont get that side of it at all, everyone becomes an internet mini courtroom judge with folded arms ... makes me smile.

    Prove to ME im the all knowing (no direct pointing), I beg to differ, that's my middle view, and that will always be the case, whether people agree or not, and its no shock they wont ;)

    Anyway, enough said on the matter my end, nothing is ever set in stone, new evidence comes along all the time, even NIST realised that.

    In the real world you need to have evidence to back up your points to show that they are correct and/or worthwhile. Otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time. You can't base your argument on the possibility that evidence to support your theories may appear. The same goes for 'well it's a middle of the road view'. Facts and evidence are needed not feelings and wishful thinking.

    The nuclear detonation case is incorrect because the effects of a nuclear explosion were not present therefore it was not a nuclear explosion (intense heat and light, radiation, huge explosive bang etc.). Traces of a nuclear detonation would be left. In addition to that the complex nature of such a thing would leave trails (people, paper, money etc.) that would be nigh on impossible to cover up.

  25. Posted

    You have it all worked out mate, I salute you for it.

    As I already stated very clear:

    Everybody replies are still subjective points of view, like it or lump it, you clearly lump it, fair enough. Just thought Id add some middle road to the proceedings, nothing to get a sweat about.

    Requiring credible evidence to prove a case isn't a point of view it's a necessity you can't dodge by stating your trying to put forward some moderate middle road view.

    The reason that most people would dismiss out of hand nuclear weapons theory is the points I mentioned above and the fact that the effects when a nuclear weapon goes off were not present.

×