|
|
Post by B8 on Apr 11, 2006 6:19:47 GMT -5
Deja vu, or is this 1947 again and are the Russians, oops Iranians developing a nuclear weapon? If we could have stopped the weapons program in Russia should we have done it? This would have potentially stopped a 50 year cold war.
Now the question is do we Hiroshima again? It has bee far too long since we have used force to prove a point to the world. If you want to get some ones attention that you are an angry 800 pound gorilla you have to act like one. Insane? Yes, but who wants to argue with a crazy man? Argue with a crazy man and you get hurt very badly.
Sorry folks but all of the above is just game theory. If you act crazy enough the rest of the world will assume you are insane and then take that into their calculations. So prepare for insanity in the real world.
The downside is that if there are nuclear materials in a lab down there the radioactive fallout will be much worse here than over there. We would be better off sending the bomb to Nevada and setting it off in the open air here. Namely there would be no secondary materials to spread into the environment.
More to follow in this post. Stay tuned folks and reread the intro here for the follow up story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Apr 11, 2006 6:50:33 GMT -5
pre-emptive strikes would be about as popular as prison camps.
anyone that does them without SIGNIFICANT proof to take to the rest of the world would get their asses kicked... be a huge target for attacks from other countries.
I say... they strike first, hopefully they miss... and then we bomb the f'n country FLAT til it glows in the dark.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboy on Apr 11, 2006 7:25:23 GMT -5
I once read that fear cuts deeper then swords.
I believe that (Insane or not) Iran developing nuclear weapons won't be as big a deal as everyone thinks. When India and Pakistan developed Nuclear arms everyone thought they'd be the first to use them on each other. As far as I know they have not. Iran will dance around with their hairy fists in the air but as far as using anything of the sort. nah, they're crazy, not stupid. mutually assured destruction can work wonders in the right circumstances.
But what do I know.
By the way, I'm back =)
|
|
|
|
Post by Schweppes7T4 on Apr 11, 2006 8:39:21 GMT -5
the thing with nukes now... so many have them. and there are lots of alliances. if one goes, say... we nuke iran... well, the US will get response nukes from all of Iran's allies (which top of my head... it'd be enough to cause some massive damage). just the thought that a nuke could go off over american soil... its scary, and actually very angering. i dont' beleive in this "war" at all, but if that happened, i'd have no problem with responding by blowing that entire part of the world away.
again though, we do that, and guess what happens? EVERYONE will start nuking each other. it will turn into nuclear winter in a matter of days. the only reason no one did anything in WWII was because we were the only ones that had them, and were WILLING to use them. and most people know that the only reason Japan even surrendered was becasue there was in fact a 3rd plane on its way to drop one right over Tokyo (and if you think that's a rumor, its not. my grandfather was a bombadier in WWII... he knew the crews of the first two runs, and knew who was supposed to fly the third run).
nukes are just scary. they're way to easy to just wipe an entire part of the world off the face of the earth. espeically since they have ones now where the blast radius is hundreds of miles. and its doubly scary for me because i'm not that far from a naval base (yay florida... all it is is naval and air force bases... i used to live south of Tampa, and they had a SAC base there, fun stuff).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonus on Apr 21, 2006 14:37:30 GMT -5
If you think nukes are bad......just wait until science goes further with things such as nuetron bombs. Want to eliminate your enemy and only your enemy? It's theorized to leave behind only burnt corpses or if powerful enough only dust.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Apr 22, 2006 17:18:03 GMT -5
Oh come on people. Enhanced radiation weapons have been around since the 1970's and probably ealier. The articles on them are not even metioned now. Fancy name for the clean little buggers. Low fallout, high yield devices. Everything is done on the internet so welcome to 1984 for real folks. History is revised by a few keystrokes. No one believes in paper books anymore. The history is what we tell you it is. Believe me it is that way. When was the last time any of you went out to the library and went into the newspaper archives to do research?
Neutron bombs are real. They call them tactical nukes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Schweppes7T4 on Apr 24, 2006 13:39:23 GMT -5
b8 is right and wrong... they do have neutron bombs, but they're not called tactical nukes.
its not the same type of warhead. neutron bombs will literally only take out organic materail. i dont' remember how they work, i only read one thing about them and it was a long time ago. it will leave buildings, but turn all the people into ash. and there's no fallout. and supposedly they're rather easy and cheap to make (to the point where a middle class american family could make one on their savings).
they're out there, but because they dont' really have sheer destructive force (i think the effective radius is within a mile or two... granted if you made a bigger one, i'm sure they would have a bigger effect), they're not really an issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moe on Apr 24, 2006 14:45:03 GMT -5
I am Anti-war, Anti-Power, Anti-death, Anti-anything the deals with the death of people. Unless it's for a good reason, and thats a whole different topic that will start a flame war which ends up with everyone Vs. Me, and some dead guys views, that about everyone in the world hates.
|
|
F1r3f0x
Hacker!
Ph33r \/\/r4t%7C-%7C 0f K4/\/\1
100%
This is why square tires never caught on....
Posts: 446
|
Post by F1r3f0x on Apr 24, 2006 16:22:19 GMT -5
And yet you play COUNTERSTRIKE.
|
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on Apr 24, 2006 21:07:49 GMT -5
I think we should resolve this the same way we should've resolved the Korean War. Get all the Canadian Circus Midgets we can find, load 'em into cannons, and blast them behind enemy lines so they can gnaw on the enemy soldiers' ankles! It's genious!
.....It was Church's idea! He made me do it!
*edit*
On another note, about the Deja Vu thing. Another thing of Deja Vu is going on and I doubt many people have noticed. OK. Here we go.
Ronald Reagan was an actor and lived in California. He was governor of that state and then became president.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was an actor and lives in California. He is governor of that state. See where I'm going with this?
And another thing of Deja Vu.
September 11, 1851:
A group (whose ideas were that all men are equal) consisting of 2 African-Americans and 10 (I think) whites are assaulted by another group (thinking their ideas are right) for "repossession" of the African-Americans. The attacking group killed some, and ended up taking back their "property."
See how this relates to an event 150 after?
If we forget our history, we are bound to repeat it. That's what scares me the most out of this entire ordeal.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Apr 25, 2006 10:55:34 GMT -5
The effecrs of a high dose of radiation leave a corpse. A dose in excess of 1,000 rads kills in a few minutes to hours. So the corpses are there and not incinerated. Unless you are at ground zero.
A micro nuke sets off a hydrogen bomb. That is the way it functions. Getting a micro nuke is the hard part.
So it is not as scary as it is made out to be in the previous posts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy on Apr 25, 2006 10:57:06 GMT -5
Arnold can't be pres, he wasn't born in the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonus on Apr 25, 2006 11:23:27 GMT -5
Yeah but old Arnie sure is trying hard to get a bill passed to make it so he can be president. www.amendforarnold.com/Soooo creepy...... |
|
|
|
Post by Chu-Chu on Apr 25, 2006 11:37:01 GMT -5
Arnold can't be president... Goven-ator, makes sense! Presid-ator... sounds like a pedifile to me... and we just can't have that leading our country...
~Chu
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Apr 25, 2006 12:26:51 GMT -5
Anyway neutron bombs are tatical nukes because they were designed to be used in/on the European Continent to preserve the structures that would be destroyed by conventional tactical nukes. Therefore they had a tatical use and not a strategic use. Do not ask me how the war plans evolved or you will get another long discourse on Cold War ideals.
To nuke or not to nuke? That was the question everyone is avoiding. Tis better to have a big stick and not need it than need it and not have it. Long may the stick survive. For if the stick perishes so shall we all.
"Carry a big stick and walk softly." Teddy Rosevelt."
Walks softly off of the forums and awaits the tumult.
Main Entry: tu·mult
Pronunciation: 'tü-"m<, 'tyü- also 't&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tumulte, from Middle French, from Latin tumultus; perhaps akin to Sanskrit tumula noisy
1 a : disorderly agitation or milling about of a crowd usually with uproar and confusion of voices : COMMOTION b : a turbulent uprising : RIOT
2 : HUBBUB, DIN
3 a : violent agitation of mind or feelings b : a violent outburst
As Amy can testify this is the way I think and speak. Sorry but I do not change my spots.
|
|
