If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   The Pentagon wants to "lower the temperature" when it comes to Iran. Preferably to absolute zero   (thehill.com) divider line 72
    More: Obvious, Iran, George Little, deputy press secretary, military strikes, Pentagon wants, Straight of Hormuz, International Atomic Energy Agency  
•       •       •

1887 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jan 2012 at 10:33 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-11 09:58:32 PM
So, like a kind of "cold" war? With a nation actively developing their nuclear capability? Nah. What kind of dumbass idea is that?
 
2012-01-11 10:38:11 PM
The Pentagon doesn't want to be dragged into another unwinnable shiatfest in the giant litter box. I'm shocked.
 
2012-01-11 10:39:43 PM
Zero Kelven, right?!?
 
2012-01-11 10:44:04 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: The Pentagon doesn't want to be dragged into another unwinnable shiatfest in the giant litter box. I'm shocked.

It's been around a decade in Iraq, I'm sure if we weren't still there the Pentagon would have forgotten about it already.

Ideological proxy wars are never a good idea, if their araby ways bother the fundies so much let them fight the war and pay for it too.
 
2012-01-11 10:44:38 PM
Well, it's nice to know I won't have to buy a new pair of polarized sunglasses for quite some time, then.
 
2012-01-11 10:47:10 PM
NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface
 
2012-01-11 10:47:15 PM
Yeah, Iran needs a time out to look into why knowledge of nuclear physics is combustible.
 
2012-01-11 10:48:52 PM
tankjr: NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface


Kelvin is measured in degrees as well isn't it? It's just a different scale than F or C.
 
2012-01-11 10:52:33 PM
A Dark Evil Omen: The Pentagon doesn't want to be dragged into another unwinnable shiatfest in the giant litter box. I'm shocked.

I'm reading it as telling the GOP to knock the saber rattling off, because it's not really productive.

I'm sure the party that has the ULTIMATE respect for our troops will fall right in line, amirite?
 
2012-01-11 10:53:25 PM
Sure the old guard is war weary, but soon enough there will be new brass, and new suits salivating for a chance to flex some muscle, and try out some new toys, and the drums will beat again.
 
2012-01-11 10:54:29 PM
Ambivalence: tankjr: NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface

Kelvin is measured in degrees as well isn't it? It's just a different scale than F or C.


Nope. "Unlike the degree Fahrenheit and degree Celsius, the kelvin is not referred to or typeset as a degree." (new window)
 
2012-01-11 10:55:38 PM
Ambivalence: tankjr: NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface

Kelvin is measured in degrees as well isn't it? It's just a different scale than F or C.


According to Wikipedia, it was measured in degrees until 1968. It no longer is.
 
2012-01-11 11:08:34 PM
They will have to use cryocopters then. Ideally they would want to have at least four plus the air power upgrade to freeze things faster.
 
2012-01-11 11:10:43 PM
Dictatorial_Flair: Ambivalence: tankjr: NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface

Kelvin is measured in degrees as well isn't it? It's just a different scale than F or C.

Nope. "Unlike the degree Fahrenheit and degree Celsius, the kelvin is not referred to or typeset as a degree." (new window)


And it's not exactly a different scale than Celsius, it's just offset by 273.15. Conversion from one to the other is just a simple matter of addition or subtraction, depending on which way you're going:

xºC = (x + 273.15)K
and
xK = (x - 273.15)ºC

/there's also a fourth system, Rankine, which is the same thing but with degrees Fahrenheit -- xR = (x + 459.67)ºF and xºF = (x-459.67)R
//it's less popular than anchovy-and-broccoli pizza, though
///Chicago-style anchovy-and-broccoli pizza
 
2012-01-11 11:26:19 PM
It must make you unimaginably nervous, looking at people like Perry and Santorum from Iran, and realizing there's a pretty large contingent of the American political caste that would invade you if they came into power.
 
2012-01-11 11:26:32 PM
Interesting fact: the 'degree' notation is only used when you are talking about a scale of numbers that goes between two specific reference points.

Fahrenheit (the guy) originally set the 0 point by using the freezing point of a solution of ammonium chloride, and he set the point at 90 to be human body temperature. That got adjusted over time based on the freezing point of water and the actual average human body temperature, ending up with the reference points at 32 and 212 degrees. I guess they figured that using the boiling point of water was smarter than using the average human body temperature at some point.

Celsius, of course, just used 0 and 100 degrees based on the freezing and boiling points of pure water, rather than pulling it out of somebody's arse.

This also makes sense when you think about angular measurements (degrees vs radians). Kelvin and Rankine only have the lower reference point, with 0K and 0R being absolute zero; i.e. no heat at all, and the lowest temperature possible.
 
2012-01-11 11:27:25 PM
You'd think there would be a way the GOP candidates could pander to both the Likudniks and the Fundamentalist Christians without inching us towards WWIII. When the Pentagon has to reign in your rhetoric... you know your crazy train is off the rails. Seriously GOP morons, relax.
 
2012-01-11 11:35:20 PM
Absolute zero, ground zero... whatever.
Unless you mean Absolut served at freezing temperatures, then bring on the caviar.
 
2012-01-11 11:49:42 PM
karmaceutical: You'd think there would be a way the GOP candidates could pander to both the Likudniks and the Fundamentalist Christians without inching us towards WWIII. When the Pentagon has to reign in your rhetoric... you know your crazy train is off the rails. Seriously GOP morons, relax.

What do you expect to people who lack the most basic of Nobel peace prizes?
 
2012-01-11 11:59:13 PM
truthquake.com
 
2012-01-12 12:06:18 AM
Thank you. Just got my husband home. He's been deployed probably 60% of our 7 year marriage. Let them rattle their sabres in the sand, keep a discrete eye on them and let's worry about us (US) for a spell. Any of you chomping at the bit to kick A-rab ass? You've got plenty of time to enlist and get trained up before the next GOP deferral-master comes into power.
 
2012-01-12 12:08:41 AM
The Madd Mann: Ambivalence: tankjr: NEWJERSEYFARKTAG: Zero Kelven, right?!?

I have a friend, smart guy otherwise, who refuses to believe that Zero Kelvin is the proper syntax. He just won't let go of 'degrees'. Guy's a schoolteacher too. /sadface

Kelvin is measured in degrees as well isn't it? It's just a different scale than F or C.

According to Wikipedia, it was measured in degrees until 1968. It no longer is.


Give me a minute and we'll see about that.
 
2012-01-12 12:15:04 AM
King Something: And it's not exactly a different scale than Celsius, it's just offset by 273.15. Conversion from one to the other is just a simple matter of addition or subtraction, depending on which way you're going:

xºC = (x + 273.15)K
and
xK = (x - 273.15)ºC

/there's also a fourth system, Rankine, which is the same thing but with degrees Fahrenheit -- xR = (x + 459.67)ºF and xºF = (x-459.67)R
//it's less popular than anchovy-and-broccoli pizza, though
///Chicago-style anchovy-and-broccoli pizza



What is up with engineers insisting on using units of measure that nobody else uses? They too good for SI or something?
 
2012-01-12 12:21:09 AM
Boom! goes the thermostat.
 
2012-01-12 12:22:07 AM
karmaceutical: You'd think there would be a way the GOP candidates could pander to both the Likudniks and the Fundamentalist Christians without inching us towards WWIII. When the Pentagon has to reign in your rhetoric... you know your crazy train is off the rails. Seriously GOP morons, relax.

This one here.
 
2012-01-12 12:27:52 AM
robotpirateninja: karmaceutical: You'd think there would be a way the GOP candidates could pander to both the Likudniks and the Fundamentalist Christians without inching us towards WWIII. When the Pentagon has to reign in your rhetoric... you know your crazy train is off the rails. Seriously GOP morons, relax.

This one here.


And I'm sure this sort of non-brinksmanship is what the presidential candidates have in mind when they spit out the phrase "defer to the generals".
 
2012-01-12 12:36:11 AM
Don't blame engineers for Kelvin. Blame the chemists (iirc, the ideal gas law typically uses Kelvin).

and blame Santorum (new window) for your sheet problems.
 
2012-01-12 12:37:37 AM
This thread went aspie anal pedant pretty fast, wow. No discussion on the actual topic then?
 
2012-01-12 12:56:27 AM
Phil Moskowitz: This thread went aspie anal pedant pretty fast, wow. No discussion on the actual topic then?

www.babble.com
 
2012-01-12 01:03:12 AM
Then maybe you should first stop blowing up civilian scientists, aholes.
 
2012-01-12 01:04:31 AM
I'm 0K with this.
 
2012-01-12 01:09:45 AM
The DoD needs to pay a visit the GOP. Works both ways, folks.
 
2012-01-12 01:26:10 AM
Phil Moskowitz: This thread went aspie anal pedant pretty fast, wow. No discussion on the actual topic then?

You're not helping
 
2012-01-12 01:33:02 AM
tankjr: Phil Moskowitz: This thread went aspie anal pedant pretty fast, wow. No discussion on the actual topic then?

You're not helping


Then by all means, allow me. I think the "march to war" bullshiat is mirroring the ramp up of the Iraq war propaganda too much and they want to create a fake chilling effect in the media so they aren't called out on this glaring copycat methodology. They'll wait for a less baised inciting incident and allow "public opinion" to manifest organically(read: let people think they're coming up with their bellicose outrage on their own) then act accordingly. No more white vial bullshiat, they need to be more subtle before Iran becomes a proving ground.
 
2012-01-12 01:48:22 AM
Xarian0: Interesting fact: the 'degree' notation is only used when you are talking about a scale of numbers that goes between two specific reference points.

Fahrenheit (the guy) originally set the 0 point by using the freezing point of a solution of ammonium chloride, and he set the point at 90 to be human body temperature. That got adjusted over time based on the freezing point of water and the actual average human body temperature, ending up with the reference points at 32 and 212 degrees. I guess they figured that using the boiling point of water was smarter than using the average human body temperature at some point.

Celsius, of course, just used 0 and 100 degrees based on the freezing and boiling points of pure water, rather than pulling it out of somebody's arse.

This also makes sense when you think about angular measurements (degrees vs radians). Kelvin and Rankine only have the lower reference point, with 0K and 0R being absolute zero; i.e. no heat at all, and the lowest temperature possible.


Never knew why Kelvin didn't use º. Thank you for this explanation!
 
2012-01-12 01:49:32 AM
Let's just stay out of there. Besides, Iran so far away.

images.nuttymp3.com
 
2012-01-12 02:22:43 AM
Loucifer: Iran so far away.

topnews.us

"I couldn't get away."
 
2012-01-12 03:32:19 AM
Gunther: It must make you unimaginably nervous, looking at people like Perry and Santorum from Iran, and realizing there's a pretty large contingent of the American political caste that would invade you if they came into power.

No, not really.

From an Iranian perspective, you have to keep in mind the GOP and US military are still doctrinally and strategically stuck in the Cold War. They've built for, and expect, a symmetrical war against a major power despite the decades' worth of evidence that shiat just doesn't work in "giant litterbox"-es as A Dark Evil Omen put it and assorted other various third-world shiatholes.

To make things worse, Iran unlike the US has paid attention to the developments of the last decade and prepared their military accordingly. To put it simply, the Iranians have been developing their military doctrine, training and equipment specifically to counter the West. And that's in the initial phases of a potential open conflict between Iran and the US, before the Iranians would withdraw to wage a protracted asymmetrical war against the US which would be forced to occupy the country (and they will).

Also, keep in mind that while Iran may not have nuclear weapons yet, they're known to possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and you can add Iran's newly-found capacity to build and stockpile radiological weapons to that. And they're all too willing to deploy them if pushed to it.

What Perry, Gingrich, Santorum, Romney et al don't understand, which the Pentagon does and all too well, is that we'd get our clocks cleaned in a war against Iran. And, it'd be the deathblow to our already-failing economy, just like Afghanistan was to the Soviets. So, it's no wonder at all the Pentagon is being the one pushing for caution and diplomacy here.
 
2012-01-12 04:02:09 AM
Good for the Pentagon.. the rhetoric has been all kinds of crazy lately. And per the thread a day or two ago, Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons.
 
2012-01-12 04:11:39 AM
that won't slow down the neocon bullshiat factory. they're working overtime putting out propaganda trying to push us into another war. everyone from the media has offered up their "we have no choice" editorials.
 
2012-01-12 04:12:06 AM
Gunther: It must make you unimaginably nervous, looking at people like Perry and Santorum from Iran, and realizing there's a pretty large contingent of the American political caste that would invade you if they came into power.

Combine that with targeted assassinations of scientists, picking up spy drones off the ground, the most sophisticated cyber attack in history, and having the army right next door. Yeah, I can see why they would be a tad nervous.
 
2012-01-12 04:16:21 AM
Our boys in uniform barely had enough time to take off their boots and scratch their nuts before they get sent back out to that desert.
 
2012-01-12 04:29:59 AM
Alphax: Good for the Pentagon.. the rhetoric has been all kinds of crazy lately. And per the thread a day or two ago, Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons.

Wait until Panetta marches a vial of this shiat down to the UN. Buy scared idiot futures.

img513.imageshack.us
 
2012-01-12 05:54:41 AM
"champing at the bit"
 
2012-01-12 06:43:59 AM
Alphax: Good for the Pentagon.. the rhetoric has been all kinds of crazy lately. And per the thread a day or two ago, Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons.

They'd be crazy not to. Especially if they intend to make good on their threat to close the strait and send the world into an energy crisis.

/Iran is taunting many dynamite monkeys at once.
 
2012-01-12 07:23:03 AM
way south: Alphax: Good for the Pentagon.. the rhetoric has been all kinds of crazy lately. And per the thread a day or two ago, Iran is NOT building nuclear weapons.

They'd be crazy not to. Especially if they intend to make good on their threat to close the strait and send the world into an energy crisis.

/Iran is taunting many dynamite monkeys at once.


Iran loves to threaten and talk. They almost never follow through with it. You'd think most people would understand that by now.

Besides, Saudis would just start exporting more oil to loss off Iran
 
2012-01-12 07:56:03 AM
way south: Especially if they intend to make good on their threat to close the strait and send the world into an energy crisis.

In a climate where presidential contestants openly advocate for attacking them, and they have been the victim of multiple acts which the United States considers acts of war, it's not inappropriate for them to point out that if they are attacked, they can virtually stop 20% of the world's supply of oil, as a way of saying "this isn't going to be a cakewalk and have fun explaining $7/gallon gas to your constituents."

If we turned on the news every day to hear politicians talking openly about wanting to attack the US, that country would look like a set from Mad Max so fast, Friedman wouldn't have time to write an asinine column about it. Appropriate action should be taken to make sure Iran doesn't get a nuke and go all crazy, but they have just as much right to defend themselves from a crazy regime, like a Gingrich administration, as we do.
 
2012-01-12 08:07:20 AM
Lost Thought 00: Iran loves to threaten and talk. They almost never follow through with it. You'd think most people would understand that by now.

Nations tend to take the things that other nations say seriously. Especially when its talk about pointing missiles at merchant ships. Doubly so when it comes from a country that's attempted similar stunts in the past.

If Iran doesn't have a concept of what its saber rattling can cause then its their loss. Given their vulnerability and aggressive talk, its safer to assume they want the bomb and are trying to get that technology as we speak.

The US trying to ease tensions is just a false assurance. Its no guarantee that Iran wont try something.
 
2012-01-12 08:19:40 AM
way south: Lost Thought 00: Iran loves to threaten and talk. They almost never follow through with it. You'd think most people would understand that by now.

Nations tend to take the things that other nations say seriously. Especially when its talk about pointing missiles at merchant ships. Doubly so when it comes from a country that's attempted similar stunts in the past.

If Iran doesn't have a concept of what its saber rattling can cause then its their loss. Given their vulnerability and aggressive talk, its safer to assume they want the bomb and are trying to get that technology as we speak.

The US trying to ease tensions is just a false assurance. Its no guarantee that Iran wont try something.


So saber rattling forces the US to act, so the US should respond by saber rattling, which in turn forces Iran to act on its original threats? Not sure I'm following your logic.
 
2012-01-12 08:47:58 AM
Lost Thought 00: way south: Lost Thought 00: Iran loves to threaten and talk. They almost never follow through with it. You'd think most people would understand that by now.

Nations tend to take the things that other nations say seriously. Especially when its talk about pointing missiles at merchant ships. Doubly so when it comes from a country that's attempted similar stunts in the past.

If Iran doesn't have a concept of what its saber rattling can cause then its their loss. Given their vulnerability and aggressive talk, its safer to assume they want the bomb and are trying to get that technology as we speak.

The US trying to ease tensions is just a false assurance. Its no guarantee that Iran wont try something.

So saber rattling forces the US to act, so the US should respond by saber rattling, which in turn forces Iran to act on its original threats? Not sure I'm following your logic.


We've done more strategic movements of resources than saber rattling.
Has the Navy or the president actually said they'll blow up anything?

/they certainly aren't wrong for moving warships to where an opponent is promising to start a war.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report