Russian and US Nuclear Capabilities: Assessing information resources

I have tried this once before; but Rogue1 has ignored the challenge.

Namely I challenged The Bulletin: A magazine on Nuclear Policy etc.

I challenged it because they incorrectly (and grossly) mistranslated a Russian News Article (from RIA Novosti which is hardly the most credible source anyway) and so I have speculations on their intelligence.

Rogue1 has numerous other resources such as some "johnsnuclearweapons.com" or whatever.

This had resources; but not concerning the matters that Rogue1 was pointing to.

Furthermore; I recognized a few of the names there and they are good names in Strategic Policy for the US, however some of those sources were rediculous. One being a book about the "Secret History of Nuclear Weapons". The fault of American consumerism creating trendy books rather than informative ones.

And thus the age of misinformation; self-induced by an uneducated populous who believes all the right information is available to them on the Internet.

I challenge Rogue1 to back-up his resources; but he never does.

He seems to think that the fact he gives his resources and I do not give mine is vendication enough.

But...is it not true...that if his resources are wrong; it doesn't matter if mine are right or wrong; his are still wrong!

Thank you.

How incredibly petty, what a child.

My sources are there for people to read and make their own opinions. You just rant and NEVER produce any information yourself. In fact you have been proven wrong too many times to count.

Where are your sources ? Where is your information, you have none. This is getting so lame. You want to prove me wrong back up your BS with sources or some type of fact, you NEVER do. How can anyone take you seriously. Go away and stop making stupid threads.

An example of your idiocy was stating that Ballistic missile submarines didn't know where they were, how stupid are you

[edit on 16-3-2006 by rogue1]

Originally posted by rogue1
How incredibly petty, what a child.

My sources are there for people to read and make their own opinions. You just rant and NEVER produce any information yourself. In fact you have been proven wrong too many times to count.

Where are your sources ? Where is your information, you have none. Go away and stop making stupid threads.

Defend them?

How do you defend the Bulletin's incorrect translations? How do you defend a website without citing where they got their information from?

Prove that you're right by proving your information isn't wrong. Simple as that.

It's not childish...a Congressional Panel would have thrown you out as an idiot already.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by rogue1
How incredibly petty, what a child.

My sources are there for people to read and make their own opinions. You just rant and NEVER produce any information yourself. In fact you have been proven wrong too many times to count.

Where are your sources ? Where is your information, you have none. Go away and stop making stupid threads.

Defend them?

How do you defend the Bulletin's incorrect translations? How do you defend a website without citing where they got their information from?

Prove that you're right by proving your information isn't wrong. Simple as that.

It's not childish...a Congressional Panel would have thrown you out as an idiot already.

LOl gotta love your logic. You assume that everything on the Bulletins website is wrong due to a possible mistranslation. However on the other hand when you cited fas.org as a source and I pointed out that some of the information from the page you cited didn't match what you said, your reply was " Well it's mostly right "; going by your logic everything is wrong on fas.org.

Now please, stop with your ranting, you are just being annoying.

Amazing isn't it though, you have yet to provide a source to anything you claim - you are really credible

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by rogue1
How incredibly petty, what a child.

My sources are there for people to read and make their own opinions. You just rant and NEVER produce any information yourself. In fact you have been proven wrong too many times to count.

Where are your sources ? Where is your information, you have none. Go away and stop making stupid threads.

Defend them?

How do you defend the Bulletin's incorrect translations? How do you defend a website without citing where they got their information from?

Prove that you're right by proving your information isn't wrong. Simple as that.

It's not childish...a Congressional Panel would have thrown you out as an idiot already.

LOl gotta love your logic. You assume that everything on the Bulletins website is wrong due to a possible mistranslation. However on the other hand when you cited fas.org as a source and I pointed out that some of the information from the page you cited didn't match what you said, your reply was " Well it's mostly right "; going by your logic everything is wrong on fas.org.

Now please, stop with your ranting, you are just being annoying.

Amazing isn't it though, you have yet to provide a source to anything you claim - you are really credible

I U2Ued you about that; at least I can be a bigger man than you and admit that I wrote incorrectly what I was stating. But you can't admit that all your resources comprise the following:

Bad citation or no citation.

Bad research (and I've been finding more errors in the Bulletin even on just that page...they obviously need someone to translate Russian for them).

^^^ You didn't u2u me about it at all. All the u2u's I have from you are indults which didn't deal with fas at all Have we resorted to flat out lying noe ?

Also, I seriously doubt you speak Russian as well LOL

Well if you have been finding all these mistakes, where iss the proof they are wrong ? PROOF, your word unfortunately is dirt.

Here's a thought-provoking question:
What does Russian and US nuclear capabilities have to do with the War on Terrorism?

Would not this type discussion be better suited for the Weaponry forum?




seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Here's a thought-provoking question:
What does Russian and US nuclear capabilities have to do with the War on Terrorism?

Would not this type discussion be better suited for the Weaponry forum?




seekerof

My sentiments exactly. But hey, there are very good mods here, I figured let em handle it...

This can be moved if mods think it appropriate.

Anyway; Rogue1 and I had a lengthy chat; him and his numerous of online resources; and for once I thought he got something rather well researched but then again I checked the sources and they were a bunch of nutty environmentalists...so again...

Why believe those sources?

The internet is not the best of tools...I don't know why Rogue1 insists on using it.

This thread should be trashed it's crap. As for chat strat, you're the only one who seemed to think you were right. I'd say you were comprehensivley proven wrong by everyone in chat,

I was disproven by a teenager cheering on you who did nothing but continue to use the internet.

I say "well this is not good for this and this reasons...find better sources" and you say "bah this is a resource!"

You just need to get some formal education under your belt to understand why the internet is pretty speculative at best and you will be directed to good data bases by scientists...so go ask around.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You just need to get some formal education under your belt to understand why the internet is pretty speculative at best and you will be directed to good data bases by scientists...so go ask around.

I would say, all-in-all, you are mostly correct, but having said that, you are also making an absolute type assertion for there are a multitude of open accessed viable and credible sources to be found on or within the Internet. I use two in particular: The Correlates of War and International Crisis Behavior Project, among a host of others.


For the issue of nuclear weaponry, there are again a multitude of viable sites, such as nuclearweaponarchive.org, The Center for Defense Information at www.cdi.org, www.brookings.edu, www.fas.org, www.nrdc.org, and others.

Having a formal education is not the issue.
The issue is discernment.





seekerof

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I was disproven by a teenager cheering on you who did nothing but continue to use the internet.

I say "well this is not good for this and this reasons...find better sources" and you say "bah this is a resource!"

You just need to get some formal education under your belt to understand why the internet is pretty speculative at best and you will be directed to good data bases by scientists...so go ask around.

The fact reamins, you proved nothing wrong, you used bizarre aguments. What's more you post no sources you don't even mention any of your sources and that's after repeated requests. How can you be taken seriously. Your knowlege of nuclear weapons is very lacking - which is obvious from your posts.

As Seekerof has shown, there are highly credible sites on nuclear werapons, all of which have been posted. Your response is they're crap , yet you still refuse to list even one source which contradicts them.

Once you have been proven wrong, your tactics are to go off on bizarre completely unrelated tangents. At the moment your credibilty is shot, as they say " All teh kings horses and all teh kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again ". Rings true for you.

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
You just need to get some formal education under your belt to understand why the internet is pretty speculative at best and you will be directed to good data bases by scientists...so go ask around.

I would say, all-in-all, you are mostly correct, but having said that, you are also making an absolute type assertion for there are a multitude of open accessed viable and credible sources to be found on or within the Internet. I use two in particular: The Correlates of War and International Crisis Behavior Project, among a host of others.


For the issue of nuclear weaponry, there are again a multitude of viable sites, such as nuclearweaponarchive.org, The Center for Defense Information at www.cdi.org, www.brookings.edu, www.fas.org, www.nrdc.org, and others.

Having a formal education is not the issue.
The issue is discernment.





seekerof

I'm still very skeptical on Nuclearweapon.org because a lot of their resources as I only just found out are pulled from various unscientific environmentalist organizations.

Partially not their fault; the list compiled by another used this as a resource.

I'll be skeptical of it until I can find a reason to trust the sources.

I suggested GeoRef which I don't know if it's accessible or not to just anyone; the site I have to access it through requires a registered account.

I trust that site because it's all published peer reviewed papers or if not it's categorized as such...

And that way you can sift through all the stuff that are just put out there as "tid-bits" which are either correct...or totally wrong...you just can't be sure.

But a Peer reviewed paper is very difficult to be wrong; or at least it's the best theories at the time it was published.

And that way you can trace an idea from the very beginning to how it manifests today.

On the internet; so many organizations do their own research and leave you entirely out of it; this leaves you to wonder if they are politically inclined to over-look one thing or another.

Or if they simply found bad information.

Etc.

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I was disproven by a teenager cheering on you who did nothing but continue to use the internet.

I say "well this is not good for this and this reasons...find better sources" and you say "bah this is a resource!"

You just need to get some formal education under your belt to understand why the internet is pretty speculative at best and you will be directed to good data bases by scientists...so go ask around.

The fact reamins, you proved nothing wrong, you used bizarre aguments. What's more you post no sources you don't even mention any of your sources and that's after repeated requests. How can you be taken seriously. Your knowlege of nuclear weapons is very lacking - which is obvious from your posts.

As Seekerof has shown, there are highly credible sites on nuclear werapons, all of which have been posted. Your response is they're crap

, yet you still refuse to list even one source which contradicts them.

Once you have been proven wrong, your tactics are to go off on bizarre completely unrelated tangents. At the moment your credibilty is shot, as they say " All teh kings horses and all teh kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again ". Rings true for you.

I'm in disagreement that those sites are highly credible...again are you to just believe what everyone else says or are you going to believe what the authorities on the matter says?

Do you know what is an authority on the matter or not? Is it a website? Is that were President Bush goes to get his Nuclear Policy information?

Etc.

Again my goal had never been to prove myself right; only you wrong.

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I trust that site because it's all published peer reviewed papers or if not it's categorized as such...

But a Peer reviewed paper is very difficult to be wrong; or at least it's the best theories at the time it was published.

Having recently entered a doctorate/doctoral program at William and Mary, and having published a couple journal articles, I will differ and contend with your mention on peer reviewed articles or papers. Peer reviews are nothing but glorified book reviews, and peer reviewed papers are simply papers that are presenting arguments or contestable information. Please bear in mind that virtually all information, peer-reviewed or not, are open to comparative and interpretive debate and being contested. Basically, they present a position and then are defended by the information they present, again, open to debate and being contested.

I am not entirely down-playing or dismissing peer-reviewed or peer-reviews, but their only distinguishing applaud is that they are virtually all written academically or on that level--for the purpose of being debated or contested and peer reviewed.

What you say does not entirely dismiss the relevance of credible sources on or within the internet.





seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus
I trust that site because it's all published peer reviewed papers or if not it's categorized as such...

But a Peer reviewed paper is very difficult to be wrong; or at least it's the best theories at the time it was published.

Having recently entered a doctorate/doctoral program at William and Mary, and having published a couple journal articles, I will differ and contend with your mention on peer reviewed articles or papers. Peer reviews are nothing but glorified book reviews, and peer reviewed papers are simply papers that are presenting arguments or contestable information. Please bear in mind that virtually all information, peer-reviewed or not, are open to comparative and interpretive debate and being contested. Basically, they present a position and then are defended by the information they present, again, open to debate and being contested.

I am not entirely down-playing or dismissing peer-reviewed or peer-reviews, but their only distinguishing applaud is that they are virtually all written academically or on that level--for the purpose of being debated or contested and peer reviewed.

What you say does not entirely dismiss the relevance of credible sources on or within the internet.

seekerof

[edit on 17-3-2006 by Seekerof]

A non-peer reviewed paper is far less traceable I think I said this did I not? And that's important.

If you peel the layers of the onion that is the internet; you eventually learn that what is popularly said to be true was said by someone who didn't know what he was talking about.

The media is a great example of this effect.

Castro took over Cuba with little more than 7 men because New York Times declared he had more than 10,000 men in the mountains. The rest of the media; thinking New York Times to be correct; republished this information.

Batista made a strategic error: he believed them because there was no traceability; all he needed to do was realize that the New York Times writer had only met 7 men...whom he thought to be battallion leaders...he had never seen the battallions himself.

Does that analogy make sense, i'm trying to write clearly.

So a website says this website and this .org and .com says that it is true.

And that .org or .com says that this other .org said it was true.

Until finally...who said it first? Carrot-top?

Also I believe Rogue1 was looking for THIS

The main goal of Russian Federation policy in the area of strategic deterrence is to rule out any type of force pressure and aggression against Russia or its allies and, in case aggression takes place, to assure the defense of sovereignty, territorial integrity and other vital national interests of Russia or its allies.[5]

I don't disagree with everything he says.

But I think he should have more reliable sources: this pertaining to Russia's claims.

He probably uses that site some: but at least he'll know where I stand.