|
|
Post by Chu-Chu on Apr 25, 2006 12:38:27 GMT -5
B8, remind me NEVER to make you angry... You make a good point, and do tell the truth. I don't know a ton about nukes and such, but I know enough to get myself into trouble. Although, I would like to point out that there are several different types of tactical nukes, and this could be where the confusion is coming in. Or, the name PTN, precision tactial nuke could have an affect on things. PTN's tend to blow up buildings and such too... All depends on the type of tactial nuke that is being used... It's like saying 'Airplane' and trying to encompass them all... Not gunna work.
~Chu
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Apr 25, 2006 19:54:24 GMT -5
Several good books out on nukes, go Google the things and see what happens. Oh wait then you get visited. Better yet go to the library and take them out. But then you get visited. So just drop the whole subject or ask an older physics prof what they know.
"Ask questions and you may get answers you do not want to hear."
|
|
|
|
Post by DubiousMonkey on May 11, 2006 15:34:29 GMT -5
We don't need to nuke Iran - we need to poison the water supply in the whole of the middle east, then make it a glass parking lot with napalm and lime.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 11, 2006 16:17:39 GMT -5
Dubious you would kill many innocent people in the destruction you propose. But do not know how to separate the sheep from the goats, so we have to get a truth dectector that is 100% accurate before we can start anything. Now wait a minute, if we had more R&D on that one we could interview everyone and find out who is our enemy. That would do a lot better job and save us a few trillion bucks to boot.
So would a ticking nuke make you tell the truth? Or lie to get out of town? See the problem?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Black Dart on May 11, 2006 17:03:41 GMT -5
We don't need to nuke Iran - we need to poison the water supply in the whole of the middle east, then make it a glass parking lot with napalm and lime. i hope u weren't serious there... *cough* genocidal maniac *cough* u'd kill millions more innocent people than the amount of people that deserve to die would actually die. |
|
|
|
Post by xymaris on May 14, 2006 15:33:54 GMT -5
I did a massive debate at the college over this in Poli Sci class. (keep in mind I am Canadian by the way)
The Bottom line:
Under international law, and that of the I.A.E.A regulations(Which Iran is a part of, if not America) All nations have the right to pursue nuclear power, and this process may pertain to the process of uranium enrichment.
Nations such as Brazil have undergone the path to Uranium enrichment, why isn't the US putting pressure on them?
Also,Nations such as the United States and Israel which do not suscribe to international law , have enourmous stockpiles of Chemical,Nuclear and Biological weapons, refuse to regulate them and will not sign the NPT, or Land mine treaties.Should just leave well enough alone because they have no highground to stand on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy on May 15, 2006 7:10:55 GMT -5
We don't need to nuke Iran - we need to poison the water supply in the whole of the middle east, then make it a glass parking lot with napalm and lime. i hope u weren't serious there... *cough* genocidal maniac *cough* u'd kill millions more innocent people than the amount of people that deserve to die would actually die. Thats my Monkey! It certainly could solve the problem of flushing out the good from the bad by wiping them both out, but... yeah, ecologically you'd make it unhabitable for the animals too. the fluffy little Animals. so expensive long drawn out war that lasts for years, still kills thousands of innocent people, or death for millions of innocent people. War doesn't sound that bad suddenly. |
|
|
|
Post by Schweppes7T4 on May 15, 2006 10:35:01 GMT -5
what's the difference from a civilian and a conscript...? not a question for a me, but one for you guys... answer: there isn't.
they're still an innocent, and guess what a lot of countries that are "uncivilized" use?
and also, what would you call someone who drives around in their truck, with their support our troops sticker, and a flag stuck in one of their windows (besides a redneck)? aren't the just about as radical as those "civilians" you see running around in the streets or iraq and iran and other countries, burning american flags and saying "freak off america"? wouldnt' we be burning iraqi and iranian flags in the street if we weren't so "civilized"?
war isn't always the answer. if anything, its how to teach the stupid people (what i'd probably say is 90% of the world population, and 95% of america). i love the line "a person is smart, but people are dumb, irrational, and quick to anger". and then what about the people that see what's going on, and don't care, or don't do anything. like, seeing how iraq and iran have big oil markets... guess what bush is a big fan of and got most of his money thru...?
i've seen interveiws with soldiers, talked to friends of mine that are in the army and navy... they agree, they see that its all about the oil, not about "setting the iraqi people free", or instilling democracy, or whatever bs the IIO (idiot in office) is feeding the general public. they agree, but they dont' do anythign about it, they still choose to fight for this country that in the end, doesn't trust its own people. that's why the government hides so much from us. where'd the movements of the 60's and 70's go? why is america just sitting back and taking it in the butt from everyone now? we've got that whole little guy with a big gun complex again. throwing around the fact that we've got nukes and, oh hey, we've used them before... OVER 50 YEARS AGO. and the weird part? the country we used them on is in love with us now... WTF?
war may be the way... but not this. this whole thing is a load of BS, and has been ever since 9/11. i've seen stuff about our soldiers dieing, and i remember that it really hit me when i heard about the first death from iraq. i was pissed, why the hell were our people, people that i could have known, dieing for something so stupid?? they should talk about it, and if they dont' want to listen, BOMB THE freak OUT OF THEM. "innocents" and all. survival of the fittest. if we can get thru this without sacrificing one of our own, why wouldnt' we do that? cause its "inhumane"? they blow themselves up daily... who cares if we take out a couple thousand at a time?
point is... i dont' think calling them innocents, when they're in the streets, denouncing our country, is right. if they were innocent, they'd be neutral from what the general opinion was, or against the general opinion. but most of them cant' get over influcences. americans too, we're too driven by the media.
...and again, in the end, its darwin.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 15, 2006 12:43:58 GMT -5
Ah the fuel air weapon proponent. Mass bombing does not work. We tried it in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq. In the end it takes a person with a gun and a knife to "winkle the other bastard out of his hole."
Yes we can bomb them but that will not win any people over.
Only when psy ops takes over can that happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amy on May 16, 2006 13:06:25 GMT -5
we're not at war for the oil, we just want their sand to make computer chips. (shh)
and I love how NO WHERE in the media does anyone ever say anything about the rather larger ecological restoration projects that have been taking place in those countries that we have funded. Or schools getting built. Nope. Can't be bothered. this war, here, this side is bad bad bad and this side is good. American Media sucks. We're biased, and only reporting ~50% of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kami on May 16, 2006 13:57:47 GMT -5
no, media looks for ratings. you dont get ratings for showing the schools getting built and stuff. u get ratings for showing people blown away. getting shot. daeth tolls.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on May 16, 2006 15:09:28 GMT -5
And you get ratings for picking on the President of the United States of America.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 12, 2006 22:17:52 GMT -5
Nukes are for wusses, guns are for sisseys, and pacifists are lower than a plant
Call me old-fashioned but NO combat was better than feudal japan's wars. Hand to Hand combat, right next to your foe, dieing with true honor...
oh, what, oh sry, just dreaming about my rein as ruler of the world
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Jun 13, 2006 6:09:28 GMT -5
Tex you just said the same thing that I did. Only mine was the modern version. Yes when there were no guns available they did do hand to hand. Then guns came around the samurai did change. Ask the Russians what happened in the Russo Sino war of early in the 1900's. The Russians LOST.
Today as in yesterday it takes a man with weapons to go get the other guy out of his hole and make him scream uncle or make him die. Wars change but only the technique is different. BE it hand to hand when the knives are lost, or gun on gun until the ammo runs out, or when the bombing fails. SAME DIFFERENCE.
Honor means crap, survival of the meanest is what makes the winner go home and the other guy die. So I will take the biggest meanest thief to run things thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jun 13, 2006 12:18:16 GMT -5
survival of the fittest maybe, but the wicked, after they "win" the battle, they tear themselves apart, having no one else to fight they turn on each other. If we cannot show difference in combat then we are no different than lions fighting for territory.
no innocent should ever die in a war, not one
And finally if you need these massive weapons to win then you are too weak to survive on your own
|
|
