Nuclear Weapons...

Fenla · 21-02-2007 02:49AM

they want our potato's:D

PeakOutput · 21-02-2007 02:50AM

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 · 21-02-2007 02:51AM

So Glad wrote:

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

because we rock

So Glad · 21-02-2007 02:51AM

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 · 21-02-2007 02:52AM

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 · 21-02-2007 02:54AM

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 · 21-02-2007 02:59AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:00AM

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

So Glad · 21-02-2007 03:03AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:03AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:03AM

So Glad wrote:

Lets not forget black people.

shut up you racist

Fenla · 21-02-2007 03:06AM

So Glad wrote:

Lets not forget black people.

Its the chinese he's after:D

So Glad · 21-02-2007 03:06AM

PeakOutput wrote:

shut up you racist

:eek:

slipss · 21-02-2007 03:12AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:15AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:17AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:18AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:18AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:19AM

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 · 21-02-2007 03:21AM

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

slipss · 21-02-2007 03:26AM

PeakOutput wrote:

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

Wasn't there a good bit of talk from doctors that worked in Oakridge that they also exposed elderly invalid and mentally retarded people with no families to uranium radiation purposfully to find out what the effects were on humans aswell.

But they also needed to view the effect the bombs would have in cities and bulit up areas, something that was hard to judge in tests.

Fenla · 21-02-2007 03:32AM

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-6765(200201)110%3A1%3C51%3AIDUFCS%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

this is what it does to rats

AbusesToilets · 21-02-2007 03:33AM

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki also helped prevent the Japanese home islands being invaded by the Russians,who were coming in from the North.If they Allies had decided on a ground invasion it's quite possible that, apart form the millions of people who would have died in the process,Japan would have ended up like Germany.Divided and caught in the struggle between the USA and USSR.

toiletduck · 21-02-2007 11:17AM

I suppose I should mention, since nobody else has, that Russia actually has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons

Wertz · 21-02-2007 01:52PM

Bush is the only leader in the world currently rattling his nuclear sabre; his administrations plans to plant interceptor missile silos and tracking stations in former soviet states is pissing off Putin and his generals no-end and is going to force some sort of reaction eventually.
The Americans claim it is to protect Europe and US interests in the region from a launch by a rogue state..what that f*cktard in the white house doesn't seem to realise is that this is a diplomatic faux pas and makes it seem to the russians as if the US has lost the tentative trust that seems to have been built up since the Reagan-Gorbachev era.
Meanwhile we hear the Bush administration prattling on about Iran and it's "weapons programme", (in fact the defence shield I mentioned above is probably inspired by the US paranoia over Iran's future nuclear capabilities).
If the US continue posturing like this toward Russia, we could quite easily end up back in a cold war situation which is much more worrying than any perceived threat from rogue states...

There's only one country in the middle east I worry about having nuclear capabilities and that's Israel, but it's much too late to get the sh*t back into that particular horse...

SoGlad wrote:

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

Yeah because obviously being an expert in frozen dairy products qualifies you as one on nuclear weapons, political policy and the universe in general...
:rolleyes:

astrofool · 21-02-2007 04:06PM

So Kim Jong Il using the fact that he may have blown up a nuke (or at least a very big conventional weapon) to get other countries to keep on keeping his dictatorship afloat isn't rattling the nuclear sabre?

Or Russia implementing multiple warhead missiles? and constantly banging on about how much nukes they have and that they are still a world power, when really their only saviour has been high gas prices.

Even the missile defence system would not effect Russia's ability to bomb the entire world back to the stone age if they so wished.

During the cold war and still, America and Russia kept in constant communication to ensure they would not start WW3 by mistake. The danger with the likes of Iran/Korea is that they don't communicate and in Iran's case, already stated they want to wipe out Israel.

Since the inception of nuclear weapons and the MAD deterrant, we have had the longest sustained period of peace ever.

Also, on the subject of Japan, and the bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, how many people would have been killed if nukes weren't used? If you had the chance to nuke Stalin before he started slaughtering millions of Russians, would you do it? In the latter case, hindsight is needed, but it doesn't take a genius to work out the casualty rates on both sides of the war against Japan to realise that the nuke was the lesser of two evils.

Terry · 21-02-2007 04:56PM

Astrofool wrote:

Since the inception of nuclear weapons and the MAD deterrant, we have had the longest sustained period of peace ever.

There were only three days of complete world peace during the twentieth century.

Kaiser_Sma · 21-02-2007 05:00PM

GBX wrote:

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.

America and russia are living proof the disarmament is much harder than not arming at all. More than any other nations they should be in a position to understand the need to prevent nuclear proliferation.

purple'n'gold · 21-02-2007 05:09PM

So Glad wrote:

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?

In retaliation for Big Tom’s “singing”

Dave! · 21-02-2007 06:20PM

biko wrote:

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

So it's not all bad.........

Nuclear Weapons...

Comments