Ask Iori (Candidate Edition)

Originally posted by iori_komei
An invasion of Iran would be disastrous and is totally unwinnable, so I would not
invade Iran unless the only other option was nuclear strikes.

I believe in diplomacy, a show of force, economic sanctions and if it comes down to it,
air-strikes on key Iranian nuclear and Military facilities.

In other words, he wants to blow the piss out of them until they agree to bend to our will.

Originally posted by Johnmike
In other words, he wants to blow the piss out of them until they agree to bend to our will.

No, that's completely opposite of what I would do.

I support peace and completely despise warfare and violence, however as the world is today,
I realize that sometimes that's what it comes down to.

Precision bombing of specific nuclear and military facilities does not equate to
"blowing them to piss" in any way.

Define "precision bombing."

As in bombing only specified military (or in Iran's case, nuclear) targets using advanced
targeted bombs that would effect the area outside the bombing point as little as possible.


Two examples.

1. There is a large military base with a great many soldiers and civilians, the base is a
strategic location because it houses a large amount of military equipment and weapons.
Since as little loss of life as possible is desired, precision bombs would be used to only
destroy as much military equipment as possible while killing/injuring as few people as possible.

2. There is a nuclear research plant (with underground facilities) located on the edge of a city,
near buildings and homes.
Instead of using conventional bombs that would both damage the nearby buildings and kill civilians,
precision bore bombs would be dropped near the center of the facility, the bombs would
bore down into the ground far enough to not cause damage to the surrounding area
and detonate, thereby destroying a great deal of the facility but also doing as little damage
to the surrounding area as possible.

Heres a question(or two) for you.

Currently in the UK politicians can be paid a lot of money(depending if there party won in there area), on top of that they can also claim money on expenditures and such.

whats your position on how government employees(scientists, teachers, engineers, etc) will be paid and separately how politicians will be paid?

Whats you thoughts on teaching people (in schools or otherwise) the basics about others religions?

On a personal note (in the UK) this is something we are taught for 2 years(i think) and voluntary for 1-2 more years afterwards, I found it to be quite important in allowing me to understand other peoples beliefs and allowed me to understand and respect other people cultures. Not to mention it lead me to what I believe to day which has some remarkable similarity's to what you say here, of which i haven't posted in because i don't know what to say

Don't you hate it when you have 20 question then forget them all, ill post again when I remember what I was going to ask.

Originally posted by iori_komei
1. There is a large military base with a great many soldiers and civilians, the base is a
strategic location because it houses a large amount of military equipment and weapons.
Since as little loss of life as possible is desired, precision bombs would be used to only
destroy as much military equipment as possible while killing/injuring as few people as possible.

What sort of precision bombs? Can you tell me what has this capability?

Originally posted by iori_komei
2. There is a nuclear research plant (with underground facilities) located on the edge of a city,
near buildings and homes.
Instead of using conventional bombs that would both damage the nearby buildings and kill civilians,
precision bore bombs would be dropped near the center of the facility, the bombs would
bore down into the ground far enough to not cause damage to the surrounding area
and detonate, thereby destroying a great deal of the facility but also doing as little damage
to the surrounding area as possible.

Same goes for this. What weapon would be suitable, how would it be delivered?

And you realize that nuclear facilities can contain...nuclear materials, right?

Originally posted by Edn
Currently in the UK politicians can be paid a lot of money(depending if there party won in there area), on top of that they can also claim money on expenditures and such.

whats your position on how government employees(scientists, teachers, engineers, etc) will be paid and separately how politicians will be paid?

I believe that scientists, teachers and engineers are some of the most important
people in any society, and therefore they should be payed well, and awarded
bonuses based on their work and performance.

Whats you thoughts on teaching people (in schools or otherwise) the basics about others religions?

I believe in the separation of religion and state on all levels, and therefore do not believe
in teaching any religion in school, however I do support a class teaching a secular version
of other cultures and there beliefs. I also believe in culture centers that teach about
other religions and cultures, but on a secular level, such as instead of say going to a
Mosque to learn about Islam, where you might feel uncomfortable because you're
asking a believer who may add there own tint to it, a culture center would teach a secular
history of the religion and the beliefs of the religion.

Originally posted by Johnmike
What sort of precision bombs? Can you tell me what has this capability?

I think I should probably use the term missile for this one, since I just got use to
saying bomb, anyways a short-range missile with a low, but powerful enough charge.
It would be fired at the weakest part of the building that the equipment was stored in,
therefore causing the most damage to the facility without causing abdu damage other areas.

Originally posted by Johnmike
Same goes for this. What weapon would be suitable, how would it be delivered?

And you realize that nuclear facilities can contain...nuclear materials, right?

I'm not quite sure of the name of it, I actually saw a demonstration of the next generation
version of it on a military show (Future Weapons I think), but it would be delivered either
by a long range missile (it gets the payload there than releases it to go to it's target)
or by a stealth bomber.


And yea, I do realize that, and that's why they would not fire on the area the nuclear
material is located, rather collapse the facility onto it thereby burying it and
destroying the facility.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I think I should probably use the term missile for this one, since I just got use to
saying bomb, anyways a short-range missile with a low, but powerful enough charge.
It would be fired at the weakest part of the building that the equipment was stored in,
therefore causing the most damage to the facility without causing abdu damage other areas.

...

I'm not quite sure of the name of it, I actually saw a demonstration of the next generation
version of it on a military show (Future Weapons I think), but it would be delivered either
by a long range missile (it gets the payload there than releases it to go to it's target)
or by a stealth bomber.

So you really have no clue at all. I'd learn about military capabilities before spreading your strategies. I personally would have to if I spoke of such a policy.

Originally posted by iori_komei
And yea, I do realize that, and that's why they would not fire on the area the nuclear
material is located, rather collapse the facility onto it thereby burying it and
destroying the facility.

...Thereby burying it. Right, like you can't get material from under a collapsed building? You think the nation or, alternatively, terrorists couldn't mount a recovery operation? And the damage could release or otherwise radioactive materials and cause countless deaths - all because you feel that a certain country doesn't deserve to have what we do. Such actions by the United States would be analogous to a terrorist act.

Originally posted by Johnmike
So you really have no clue at all. I'd learn about military capabilities before spreading your strategies. I personally would have to if I spoke of such a policy.

Just because I don't see the need in knowing the names of everything use in an
operation does'nt mean that it is somehow flawed.

...Thereby burying it. Right, like you can't get material from under a collapsed building?
You think the nation or, alternatively, terrorists couldn't mount a recovery operation?

You can, but it is time consuming and resource heavy work, add to that that
radioactive material would make the rubble dangerous to move without protective
suits and equipment.

And the damage could release or otherwise radioactive materials and cause countless deaths -

If it's an underground reactor/facility, and you're imploding the buildings/facility
on top of it, the rubble and debris that's contaminated is'nt going to go very far.

all because you feel that a certain country doesn't deserve to have what we do.

We SHOULD'NT even have them, it's our moral and national responsibility to prevent
the further proliferation of such dangerous and destructive devices.

Such actions by the United States would be analogous to a terrorist act.

The actions of the founding fathers of this country could be considered terrorist acts.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Just because I don't see the need in knowing the names of everything use in an
operation does'nt mean that it is somehow flawed.

But it means that you don't know how, and even if, this could be carried out. Meaning that your plans are moot until you do.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You think the nation or, alternatively, terrorists couldn't mount a recovery operation?

Yes. It's probably not very difficult. All you need is a crowbar at least, crane at most.

Originally posted by iori_komei
You can, but it is time consuming and resource heavy work, add to that that
radioactive material would make the rubble dangerous to move without protective
suits and equipment.

Depends on the material. If you want to get dirty, have some expendable people do the recovery op.

Originally posted by iori_komei
If it's an underground reactor/facility, and you're imploding the buildings/facility
on top of it, the rubble and debris that's contaminated is'nt going to go very far.

I wouldn't count on it being underground. Plus bombing it could pretty much punch a hole through it.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Johnmike]

Originally posted by Johnmike
But it means that you don't know how, and even if, this could be carried out. Meaning that your plans are moot until you do.

I do know that it could be carried out.

As for the how to do it, well I'd leave it up to the military generals and pilots,
since I trust they could come up with a good plan, of course that's not to say
I'd blindly follow the militaries recommendations on everything and every part of it, but still.

Depends on the material. If you want to get dirty, have some expendable people do the recovery op.

Perhaps so, but I don't think that people would be seen as expendable in that
manner by a nation.

I wouldn't count on it being underground. Plus bombing it could pretty much punch a hole through it.

Being underground is much safer both strategically and to the surrounding area than
being above ground, so it's likely that they would have atleast some part of it underground.

As for bombing it, well the whole point is to punch a whole in the ceiling of the facility,
than explode the bomb thereby imploding the facility in on itself.

Originally posted by iori_komei
I do know that it could be carried out.

Then how? What technology would be used, what weapons? I have no idea what you're talking about that would have the desired effects.

Originally posted by iori_komei
Perhaps so, but I don't think that people would be seen as expendable in that
manner by a nation.

Because a crane and a hazmat suit are really expensive.

Originally posted by iori_komei
As for bombing it, well the whole point is to punch a whole in the ceiling of the facility,
than explode the bomb thereby imploding the facility in on itself.

That would most likely make the building explode.

And do anything but contain any hazardous materials.


No matter what you do, explosion or implosion (aka wizard) you're not going to magically contain these materials.

Johnmike why do you keep pressing those questions that would never be directed at a president in the first place? It's not a presidents job to "define 'precision bombing'" or to choose which bombs may be suitable for a particular job, thats the military's job, in fact its going to be the military's job to draw up plans for anything involving the military. The presidents job in it is to look at what the military advisor's have presented and make a decision on it.

I don't know what the rules are for this election but its fairly obvious your simply trying to make a fool of Iori by catching him out on things he isn't required to know as a president.

It's nothing about making a fool out of him. He advocated a very specific military practice, and I wanted to know how it would be done. I don't even know. To me, it sounded kind of impossible, but I don't know modern weaponry very well. Iori didn't explain the mechanics and practicality of things that he was explicitly advocating so far. I'm giving him the chance to do so; I'm interested myself.