Nuclear Weapons...

So Glad

I've stumbled upon a lot of nuclear orientated stuff lately and I have to say, I'm shocked. Let me show you a few things I have found:

Ben (Of Ben & Jerry's) discussing America's arsenal of WMDs

Image entailing the strengths of WMDs nowadays

I'm just thinking how crazy this is. It beggars belief. America has 10,000 nuclear weapons, 10,000 of this monstrous weapons. I don't know how that makes them any safer.

Probably wrong forum but I thought I'd share this with you.

aidan_walsh

I don't know how that makes them any safer.

MADness.

So Glad

aidan_walsh wrote:

MADness.

Ditto.

GBX

I understand the fear of knowing somebody has them out there, but I cant help feeling that the US are very hypocrytical about nuclear weapons. They have the biggest arsenal of these in the world and are very much opposed to Iran, North Korea etc having them. Dont get me wrong, I dont think anybody should have them.

Ghost Train

Well as long as the guy with his finger on the button is intelligent and of sound min.....d, yep we're f***ed

Dirk Gently

So Glad wrote:

I don't know how that makes them any safer..

The theory is that any country with nukes is safe from any other country with nukes because they both possess the ability to wipe each other out should the other launch at them.

It's a case of "don't be stupid, if we attack them they'll attack us and then we'll all be dead".

It only really works against states though, not very effective against smaller organisations as there is nowhere to launch a counter strike against when attacked by a terrorist organisation, in which case you just invade a few non nuclear countries who had nothing to do with the attack to try and save face.

So Glad

Well, if your true goal is to disarm the world of weapons and bring peace, doesn't that not start at home?

biko

If you dropped a Tzar Bomba in the middle of the city you could effectively erase entire Galway including suburbs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg/582px-Comparative_nuclear_fireball_sizes.svg.png

So Glad

10,000 Tsar Bombas.......10,000....

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Well, if your true goal is to disarm the world of weapons and bring peace, doesn't that not start at home?

absolutely not but i dont know if they ever said they want to do that after all its in theirs constitution that everyone has the right to bear arms

Flukey

Some of those guys have very hairy arms, so they could be a bear's!

Fenla

If america can have nukes, why should it be any different for iraq or north korea.

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

absolutely not but i dont know if they ever said they want to do that after all its in theirs constitution that everyone has the right to bear arms

I disagree, you can never fight fire with fire, even if you win, there are scars on both sides.

PeakOutput

Fenla wrote:

If america can have nukes, why should it be any different for iraq or north korea.

because america has some sembalance of a democracy iraq was a dictatorship and so is north korea ie one mans will (throw in bush arguments here but he still has to convince congress)

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

I disagree, you can never fight fire with fire, even if you win, there are scars on both sides.

ok so if you were an american you would vote for the next president who says he is going to disband the military down to a token force and get rid of all the wmds immedietley...................his argument being the terrorists or anyone else will then not think of them as a threat anymore and therefore not attck you............................errrrrrrrr WRONG

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

because america has some sembalance of a democracy iraq was a dictatorship and so is north korea ie one mans will (throw in bush arguments here but he still has to convince congress)

Ok, lets step back and consider agression with regards to nuclear weapons with respect to government policies. Why is it a common thought to guess that a communist society would use weapons much more readily that a democratic one? This my friend, sadly, is a loads of bollox because the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons on a fellow humans is America, a democratic nation.

Sangre

Fenla wrote:

If america can have nukes, why should it be any different for iraq or north korea.

America is a democracy and they're not?

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

ok so if you were an american you would vote for the next president who says he is going to disband the military down to a token force and get rid of all the wmds immedietley...................his argument being the terrorists or anyone else will then not think of them as a threat anymore and therefore not attck you............................errrrrrrrr WRONG

I'm not wrong. Ghandi beat the English nation by sitting on his arse, in the words of Lennon, give peace a chance.

So Glad

Sangre wrote:

America is a democracy and they're not?

Read me second last post.

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Ok, lets step back and consider agression with regards to nuclear weapons with respect to government policies. Why is it a common thought to guess that a communist society would use weapons much more readily that a democratic one? This my friend, sadly, is a loads of bollox because the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons on a fellow humans is America, a democratic nation.

firstly i dont care if its communist facist or whatever im and for the record im not pro america im anti dictatorship.

secondly that was to end a war(horrible way to do it that it was) not begin one.

i have no doubt that saddam hussein if he had the ability and the inkling that morning would fire a nuke at america even with their current arsenal never mind without it

hiroshima was terrible of course it was but the only people to blame are the japanese government for launching an unprovoked attack on america as they were weak fighitng another war

Fenla

The weapons of mass the destruction thing had to be an excuse to invade iraq and steal all of their natural resources. im all up for bush bashin but we all know its never going to change, america has its control over everyone.

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

I'm not wrong. Ghandi beat the English nation by sitting on his arse, in the words of Lennon, give peace a change.

chance????:p

and peace clearly deserves a chance but it is not always possible that is a sad fact

and ghandi was dealing with semi reasonable people not people willing to blow themselves up at the slightest hint of disagreement with their fundamentalist ideals

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

chance????:p

and peace clearly deserves a chance but it is not always possible that is a sad fact

You don't know that, it hasn't been done en masse.

Thanks for the typo point out.

PeakOutput

Fenla wrote:

The weapons of mass the destruction thing had to be an excuse to invade iraq and steal all of their natural resources. im all up for bush bashin but we all know its never going to change, america has its control over everyone.

america controlling everyone is not a particularly bad thing...........if they didnt then the peace process in the north good friday agreement etc would be nowhere near as advanced as it is...............

yes they went to iraq for the wrong reasons but someone had to do something imo

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

You don't know that, it hasn't been done en masse.

Thanks for the typo point out.

how do you try peace with people who believe that all people who do not have the same beliefs as them should be killed and put in the hands of god to judge?

So Glad

Also, this whole thing about retaliation being only option is ridiculous in my opinion. Say you get a (seemingly on the front of things) unprovoked attack, you lose a lot of people what is a logical explaination? Leave it at that, realise why you got attacked, work with the enemy for peace, let there not be any more violence on both sides and hopefully the enemy, in hindsight, will try their best in reparations.

You can't feel better because of your loss by making someone else suffer.

Capt'n Midnight

The US military has 10,000 nukes.

So what ?

Even in WWII an air raid on Tokoyo with conventional weapons killed more than either of the atomic raids. Some estimates reach a count of 10,000,000 civilians killed by the US military since the end of WWII. ( mostly in Asia )

The US is extremely unlikely to nuke you, but the rendition and collateral damage and death by sanctions are regular occurances.

And they still have smallpox, and loads of other nasties, like lasers which while they aren't allowed to use directly on people will still blind them if they happen to be near a military target. And the odd land mine or too. And cluster munitions with plastic shrapnel, invisible on x-ray and unlikely to be hypoalleregnic.

Fenla

Check this out, http://zvis.com/nuclear/ndb/usnuks.shtml

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

how do you try peace with people who believe that all people who do not have the same beliefs as them should be killed and put in the hands of god to judge?

Hmm, I assume this is Islam your talking about. To be honest, they are not as mindless as you'd think, these guys are intellegent and are hurt with the mindset of the west, who seem oblivious to what they are doing, while maintaning the democratic mantra. They see us as corrupt, and to a certain degree we are, and our disrespectful actions fall on them. They feel so enraged, so why is it not wise to assume if we became peaceful (disarmed, fairtrade etc) they would be happy with our choice, and then follow our lead?

Also, the west is the same on the flipside, lets not forget this. America is now invading the middle east because of the way they choose to live, same as the middle-east is attacking them for the same reason. The circle of crap.

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Also, this whole thing about retaliation being only option is ridiculous in my opinion. Say you get a (seemingly on the front of things) unprovoked attack, you lose a lot of people what is a logical explaination? Leave it at that, realise why you got attacked, work with the enemy for peace, let there not be any more violence on both sides and hopefully the enemy, in hindsight, will try their best in reparations.

You can't feel better because of your loss by making someone else suffer.

your speaking in the singular..........these are nations we are talking about

hiroshima was not about making any individual person suffer it was about making the nation realise they could not win............if i remember correctly the reason japan attacked america in the first place was because they were running out of OIL and they wanted to capture land(cant remember were) that was rich in the stuff but they knew america was friendly with the government that owned that land

for arguments sake lets say england forcefully reinvades ireland do we sit on our arses and say "here we arent going to fight you but come onnnn....please leave" we might and they will say..."eeeeehhhhhhh????.....no"

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

your speaking in the singular..........these are nations we are talking about

hiroshima was not about making any individual person suffer it was about making the nation realise they could not win............if i remember correctly the reason japan attacked america in the first place was because they were running out of OIL and they wanted to capture land(cant remember were) that was rich in the stuff but they knew america was friendly with the government that owned that land

for arguments sake lets say england forcefully reinvades ireland do we sit on our arses and say "here we arent going to fight you but come onnnn....please leave" we might and they will say..."eeeeehhhhhhh????.....no"

If time has ever though us a lesson, it's that you can't predict the future.

And what possible reason would England want to envade us anyways?

Fenla

they want our potato's:D

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Hmm, I assume this is Islam your talking about. To be honest, they are not as mindless as you'd think, these guys are intellegent and are hurt with the mindset of the west, who seem oblivious to what they are doing, while maintaning the democratic mantra. They see us as corrupt, and to a certain degree we are, and our disrespectful actions fall on them. They feel so enraged, so why is it not wise to assume if we became peaceful (disarmed, fairtrade etc) they would be happy with our choice, and then follow our lead?

Also, the west is the same on the flipside, lets not forget this. America is now invading the middle east because of the way they choose to live, same as the middle-east is attacking them for the same reason. The circle of crap.

i was talking about islamic fundamentalist extremists not all of islam or even all of the islamic fundamentalists. i happen to have a recently acquired great respect in particular for the muslim religon

america is not attacking them because of how they live......if anything they are attacking them because they are the ones trying to be forced into something.....but i dont believe thats the reason either.........they are using a poor countries political catastrophe to their long term economic advantage

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

And what possible reason would England want to envade us anyways?

because we rock

So Glad

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

The US military has 10,000 nukes.

So what ?

Even in WWII an air raid on Tokoyo with conventional weapons killed more than either of the atomic raids. Some estimates reach a count of 10,000,000 civilians killed by the US military since the end of WWII. ( mostly in Asia )

The US is extremely unlikely to nuke you, but the rendition and collateral damage and death by sanctions are regular occurances.

And they still have smallpox, and loads of other nasties, like lasers which while they aren't allowed to use directly on people will still blind them if they happen to be near a military target. And the odd land mine or too. And cluster munitions with plastic shrapnel, invisible on x-ray and unlikely to be hypoalleregnic.

True, there are other horrors, but the fact is that these bombs are of huge devestation. And also cost a **** load of uneccesary tax dollars (Being Irish, I shouldn't care, but I care for peoples well-being in general) . Most of the US lives in utter poverty due to the government disasterous spending on weapons..

slipss

PeakOutput wrote:

secondly that was to end a war(horrible way to do it that it was) not begin one.

No it was to show the Russians and everyone else that America had the biggest stick in the playground and weren't above using it, and also to justify spending over 2 billion dollars, on a research project that was criticised by top military figures.

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Most of the US lives in utter poverty due to the government disasterous spending on weapons..

no argument there but the genreals would probably say at least they are living;)

PeakOutput

slipss wrote:

No it was to show the Russians and everyone else that America had the biggest stick in the playground and weren't above using it, and also to justify spending over 2 billion dollars, on a research project that was criticised by top military figures.

so why didnt they just blow it up in the dessert like the rest of them........everyone knew they had nukes everyone knew what they did, the russians where already crippled with fighting germany america had nothing to fear from them at that time i think people are way way too cynical when it comes to america especially its past governments but i hate sounding like a supporter coz i really am not, but can you not just believe that hey thought it was the best way to defend their country at the time???? just throwing it out there


anyway when china finds a way to tax it 1billion people we are all ****ed anyway

Fenla

i'd say alot of the poverty is immigrants and the likes. america mostly look after their own.

So Glad

Fenla wrote:

i'd say alot of the poverty is immigrants and the likes. america mostly look after their own.

Lets not forget black people.

PeakOutput

Fenla wrote:

i'd say alot of the poverty is immigrants and the likes. america mostly look after their own.

their are parts of america that is very wealthy but there are ten times more areas of,while i wouldnt say poverty, i would say on the breadline.........american african american latino irish everyone. we tend not to see that part of america

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

Lets not forget black people.

shut up you racist

Fenla

So Glad wrote:

Lets not forget black people.

Its the chinese he's after:D

So Glad

PeakOutput wrote:

shut up you racist

:eek:

slipss

PeakOutput wrote:

so why didnt they just blow it up in the dessert like the rest of them

Well sticking with the same analogy because when you have the biggest stick in the playground and you want to show what it can do you don't bang it on the ground really hard and hope everybody backs off, you split that kid that pushed you last weeks head open with it, because you know the site of him lying on the ground with blood running down his face will inspire much more fear, than making a loud bang on the ground with it.

PeakOutput

slipss wrote:

Well sticking with the same analogy because when you have the biggest stick in the playground and you want to show what it can do you don't bang it on the ground really hard and hope everybody backs off, you split that kid that pushed you last weeks head open with it, because you know the site of him lying on the ground with blood running down his face will inspire much more fear, than making a loud bang on the ground with it.

will it stop him doing it again??

slipss

PeakOutput wrote:

will it stop him doing it again??

well, yes obviously. You clearly never had your head split open by a fat stick wielding school kid before.

brianthebard

So Glad wrote:

I'm not wrong. Ghandi beat the English nation by sitting on his arse, in the words of Lennon, give peace a chance.

Eh the British empire was in no state to start imposing its will on colonies after WWII, plus when it saw sectarian fighting it knew it wanted out. That has as much to do with Indian independance as Ghandi.

So Glad

slipss wrote:

Well sticking with the same analogy because when you have the biggest stick in the playground and you want to show what it can do you don't bang it on the ground really hard and hope everybody backs off, you split that kid that pushed you last weeks head open with it, because you know the site of him lying on the ground with blood running down his face will inspire much more fear, than making a loud bang on the ground with it.

And also to observe the effects of nuclear weapons on humans, which the results were unknown.

PeakOutput

slipss wrote:

well, yes obviously. You clearly never had your head split open by a fat stick wielding school kid before.

iv never given them a reason to do it lol

PeakOutput

So Glad wrote:

And also to observe the effects of nuclear weapons on humans, which the results were unknown.

not quite true as they sent their own troops to the site of the blasts in the desserts and quickly realised the effects when the troops started to die while looking at the cool green glass in the sand