Off Topic: Why are we dealing with this again?

[Thraxz]

Apparently, the neo-cons in office are at it again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ar_050202062221

We go around the world throwing our military threat and economic leverage at countries who wish to gain nuclear capability. This is a wonderful thing. Too bad now we have a bunch of dipshits running the country that have decided that since we're already liars, why not be hypocrites too? (As if we wern't already.) So, we have the gaul to tell other countries that they cannot develop nukes BUT we go right on ahead and develop our own.

Isn't that wonderful?

With our SALT treaties, I thought that we had collectively decided that nukes were a bad thing, and that nothing good can come of them SO we decided to disarm.

Can't you guys wait for the thermonuclear dust to begin to settle from testing? Sure they'll be underground but, holy shit, we'd be nuke testing... AGAIN.

Anyone else had a gi-fucking-gantic problem with this?

 

[Wyvern]

With our SALT treaties, I thought that we had collectively decided that nukes were a bad thing, and that nothing good can come of them SO we decided to disarm.

Quoting Skyclad

Planet Earth is great to visit, it's great to visit (but you woudn't like to live there).

 

[Bryant]

Apparently, the neo-cons in office are at it again.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ar_050202062221

We go around the world throwing our military threat and economic leverage at countries who wish to gain nuclear capability. This is a wonderful thing. Too bad now we have a bunch of dipshits running the country that have decided that since we're already liars, why not be hypocrites too? (As if we wern't already.) So, we have the gaul to tell other countries that they cannot develop nukes BUT we go right on ahead and develop our own.

Isn't that wonderful?

With our SALT treaties, I thought that we had collectively decided that nukes were a bad thing, and that nothing good can come of them SO we decided to disarm.

Can't you guys wait for the thermonuclear dust to begin to settle from testing? Sure they'll be underground but, holy shit, we'd be nuke testing... AGAIN.

Anyone else had a gi-fucking-gantic problem with this?

I wish it were as easy as that. I am a proud American, but I don't consider myself any better than anyone else, nor my country any better than anyone else's. Unfortunately, our country has already put itself into a bad situation. We are the only country that carries the burden of having launched nuclear weapons against civilians. We spent billions and billions of dollars helping Japan to become the economic giant it is today, but at what cost ?
During the cold war, the goal was always to have the edge or at least balance of power. Now that the Soviet Union has fallen, few really know where all of the nuclear arms went. I am not saying that the former USSR intelligence wasn't smart enough to know where every long-range nuclear missile was located, but it wouldn't surprise me if some nuclear weapons ended up AWOL. Some of those countries that are former Soviet territories are very poor and it is possible (though unlikely) nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands if the price is right.
America's government, though seriously flawed, is a government that is elected by the people and if a leader gets too far out of hand, he/she will be removed from power. The US government will NEVER launch a nuclear attack again on any country unless one is launched against them first. I may not be very proud of my government right now as far as the way many things are going in Iraq, etc. but I honestly have trust in our government's stand on nuclear weapons. We HAVE to have them simply because other countries do. Balance of power goes back into play here yet again.


Bryant

 

[Thraxz]

I'm not bashing but your post is largely outside of what I wanted addressed.

BUT, you did have one thing to say I want to respond to.

We HAVE to have them simply because other countries do. Balance of power goes back into play here yet again.

NO ONE else in the world is producing thermonuclear bunker busters. No one is even producing the same size or especially number of standard nuclear warheads that we have right now. There is nothing to balance out. All we are doing is producing another useless weapon of destruction we'll never use. This time, we don't even have the excuse of mutual ensured destruction to justify it.

 

[Bryant]

I'm not bashing but your post is largely outside of what I wanted addressed.

I apologize. I am not one to start shit up. I reply on the things I see. I must have been mistaken on the intent. All I know is that whether we are building up nuclear arms or not, if US nukes are ever used for anything other than as a retaliation from a nuclear strike, the US government will be overthrown.
I also know our government has also invested billions in the tsunami tragedy. That money comes straight out of the taxpayers pockets and I will never complain about it. That is the way America does things and one of the things that makes me proud to be an American.


Bryant

 

[Igor_Cavalera]

I agree with pretty much everything you all have said.

I just have one thing to add. A government has a very useful tool to hold off being overthrown; Propaganda. And it works surprisingly well, somehow intelligent people fall it all the time.

 

[SoundMaster]

We HAVE to have them simply because other countries do. Balance of power goes back into play here yet again.


Bryant

This is only partially true.
The flipside is that early in his first term, Bush withdrew the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. As opposed to slowing down the U.S. production of long-range ballistic missiles, the administration has adopted a 'cold war' mentality of actively pursuing the construction of more, instead of less.

And, as already noted in this thread, the admin has also stepped up research into and creation of "mini-nukes" - effectively super bunker busters.

In many ways, the current US stance gives lisence to rogue nations to seek & implement nuclear weapons.

And, ironically, nations that have TRUE WMDs are nations that we'd never invade. Had Saddam had true WMDs, and the means by which to use them, we never would have been able to invade Iraq. The fear of his use of WMDs would have prevented any war/invasion.

 

[SoundMaster]

All I know is that whether we are building up nuclear arms or not, if US nukes are ever used for anything other than as a retaliation from a nuclear strike, the US government will be overthrown.


Bryant

I'm not "picking on you", so please don't take it that way. Just engaging in constructive conversation!


Anyway, I would tend to disagree with this statement, as well. If, for example, the US launched a nuclear attack, the majority of the American public, I feel, would ultimately accept it. Of course, this attack would have to come on the heels of a massive months-long propaganda campaign and "softening up" of the American public to 'prepare them' for it. President Bush can tell people exactly what they want to hear. For example, for 13 months, Colin Powell and the President raged on about Saddam's WMDs, and why they were THE REASON to invade. Soon after, when none were to be found (validating Scott Ritter & Europe's pre-war claims), the mantra quickly became "freedom for Iraqis". That became the new reason for the war (meanwhile, we have no desire to ever overthrow other middle-eastern dictatorships/anti democracies such as those in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia). Heck, just last week, the government "officially" proclaimed that the search for WMDs is over. The media barely touched it. The public doesn't give a care. Being that the public has now been told for almost 18 months that the war is for "Iraqi freedom" (no longer for WMDs), it's all well and good that none were found.

The same would occur in the event of a US nuke strike. Months of "softening up" in the media, and voila! A very strongly supported nuclear war!

Of course, many of the freedom-loving nations of the world would potentially so strongly oppose it they might actually consider war against the US. But let's hope it never happens.

 

[Thraxz]

Ah, yes, the famous Mighty Morphin' War Justifications....

 

[USMC0341]

I'm not even touching this subject...it's not even worth the effort because people have their opinions and they're not going to change. I love this country, other people hate it. I can't change any of that. I think we do a lot of good, in addition to some pretty bad things as well. I just try to make sure it all gets put out there, instead of one-sidedness on either end of the spectrum.

Whether you agree with the war or not, please support all the troops...every last one of them deserves it...and from experience I can tell you it means a hell of a lot when you're far from home and in hostile territory.

JB

 

[SoundMaster]

I think we do a lot of good, in addition to som epretty bad things as well.

This is a very honest, accurate assessment. Is the US 'evil'? Of course not. Is it 'all good'? Of couse not.

No such things, my friends, as "all good" or "all evil".

 

[Bryant]

I'm not "picking on you", so please don't take it that way. Just engaging in constructive conversation!


Anyway, I would tend to disagree with this statement, as well. If, for example, the US launched a nuclear attack, the majority of the American public, I feel, would ultimately accept it.

I can tell you for absolute certain, there is NO way I could ever accept launching a nuclear attack except for as a retaliatory measure against one launched against the US. I probably am slightly more conservative than liberal, but I don't subscribe to any particular party (actually I lean more toward the Libertarian stance than anything.)
I am not sure if the war in Iraq is truly a "mistake" by our intelligence services (as far as WoMD supposedly being in Iraq) or a cover-up by the Bush administration. Certainly, in my mind Bush is a bit of a bully and likes to use his power and military might though. I also seriously question his hasty decision for the invasion as opposed to allowing sanctions etc. to have a more long-term effect. But...... having said all of that, I think it is possible Bush was trying to do what he thought was best for this country. I don't condone it by any means, but Bush was forced into situation no other American President has ever had to deal with.
I hope for the sake of Iraqi civilians, allied soldiers, and workers/journalists from all over the world that have become casualties from this conflict that Iraq can become a peaceful and economically successful democracy, but the culture of the Arab countres are night and day compared to the culture of the Western (and most of the far Eastern) world. I seriously question that the ultimate goal will be achieved from this. I suppose we will all see though.



Bryant

 

[Igor_Cavalera]

If, for example, the US launched a nuclear attack, the majority of the American public, I feel, would ultimately accept it. Of course, this attack would have to come on the heels of a massive months-long propaganda campaign and "softening up" of the American public to 'prepare them' for it. President Bush can tell people exactly what they want to hear.

That's what I said a couple of posts above. But you explained it better.

 

[Thraxz]

I'll quote myself from another forum... some of this might be relevant... other parts might not be. Either way, I think you'll understand.




quote:Originally posted by The_Terminator
You missed the idea of testing itself. It goes without saying that a 20 megaton bomb will wipe out anything, but the possible point of the testing is to downgrade the overall power of these weapons to a point where they won't have the same effect as a 20 megaton bomb.



(I'll admit my info was a tad off earlier, but not by much.)

First, it takes a normal nuclear explosion to initiate the fusion of an H-bomb (hence the thermo part of thermonuclear bomb). Now we add the power of the fusing hydrogen to it. Our first, test shot, of a hydrogen bomb was using deuteride... which produces less than half the power that tritium (what we actually use in a nuke) produces by the nature of it's two neutrons. It was "10.4 megatons, an explosive force 693 times more powerful than the atomic bomb that had annihilated Hiroshima in 1945." That WAS A TEST SHOT, not even our most powerful.

"The energy from the splitting of atoms with heavy nuclei like plutonium produced temperatures on the order of those at the core of the sun that were necessary to kick-start the fusion of the liquid deuteride with other lightweight hydrogen nuclei. This fusion produced even greater energy, so much that, as physicist Kosta Tsipis writes, "An exploding nuclear weapon is a miniature, instantaneous sun."

Does this sound like we can downgrade it so much that we won't disrupt thousands of square miles?


quote: Financally speaking, with the tax cuts Bush has put into place there's no way he could get the money to fund the creation of a whole line of 20 megaton bunkerbusters.



Bush has no trouble sending this country further into debt for bad reasons. What makes you think he wouldn't do it to fatten the defense industry that he caters to further?

quote: Military-wise, there's no need to use that much force on a bunker in the middle of a desert considering the fact that we know how to make bunkerbusters which penetrate the Earth's crust and detonate underground. Also, if it was a 20 megaton bomb, the issue of the well-being of American soldiers near by is a factor.



Refer to my point above... about how powerful our test shot was.

quote:So therefore, the only possible explanation is that we're trying to create a nuclear bomb which will completely eliminate our targets, and yet not completly ruin the area.



10 megatons....

quote:The article clearly states that Rumsfeld is looking to re-open the research development of these weapons.



Once again, this is a cabinet member whom Bush has personally endorsed even after bungling his job on the Iraq ordeal therefore Bush is responsible for all of his actions. Flowers in the streets indeed...

quote:Are you implying that the nation did not have debt after the Revolution?



Absolutely not. I was insinuating that our country was considerably against deepening any debt and Hamiilton came up with a bit of propaganda to help his idea.

I can imagine Keynes had taken a page from Hamilton's book when he developed his economic theory.

quote:Whether the worse is yet to come or we have already reached the peak of how high our debt will reach, it will take time, like with all things, for the debt to lower.



It will not lower after we reach a point, you know. We'd be like so many of our southern neighbors who had to switch currency after bankruptcy.

quote:And I have no doubt in my mind, if Kerry or anyone else were elected into office, we'd still have a debt which was just as bad and still had the potential of getting worse.



The thing is... it IS getting worse with Bush here. Whether or not Kerry would have made it worse is moot point and useless to argue.

Bush shows no real signs of giving a crap either. He won't play into his father's mistake of raising taxes after spouting no new taxes, our future be damned, he wouldn't sacrafice reelection for fiscal "soundness."



quote:To the first part of that quote, I believe you are contridicting yourself.



How? I view myself as having blood on my hands because everything Bush does is on done on behalf of our people. Which, to bring back an old topic, is why I would not feel bad at all were he to get assassinated. I would merely feel bad that his life was wasted doing stupid things.

quote:Bush did not go to war on his own; it was Republicans and Democrats alike in Congress who voted to send troops over to BOTH Afghanistan and Iraq. This just as a side note so you know not to only blaim the president, but your congressman as well. [/B]



Of course. Bush fed the congressmen and women with either the same garbage "intelligence" that he received, or he lied to them. Actually, he lied to them either way by assuring them that all avenues of diplomacy would be exhausted before war was to break out. Both you, I and everyone else knows that Bush didn't wait for every possibilty to be exhausted. Back to the main point, he gave them filtered info that his admin, that he is responsible for, made (collected... whatever). He either purposely misled them with it OR accidentally gave them the poor info and is still responsible for the admin that filtered the intel. Moreover, the congress only gave him the AUTHORITY to invade based on that terrible info and assurance. They didn't MAKE him invade, nor did they even TELL him to invade but gave him permission to. (And even that permission was, once again, coupled with a promise to exhaust diplomacy and on either maliciously or accidentally misleading intel.)

 

[USMC0341]

Let me guess...you're not too fond of Bush - right?