Asmodeus Posted December 16, 2003 Report Posted December 16, 2003 I like how you removed the part about not having to worry about countries, then saying how it doesn't work because terrorists attacked us. GGWasn't the threat of terrorism the reason for going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't that why your president calls it a War on Terrorism? Heh. GG. The threat of nuclear destruction didn't stop the backward nations of Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming a threat to US national security. Nuclear weapons and M.A.D. don't work against rogue states or rogue individuals. You very much do have to "worry about countries". Sigh back in the day some one mentioned the US and Nukes in the same sentence and respect was in the next subject, but now every one knows it would take alot more then blowing up millions for the US to use nuclear weapons THAT is why terrorists attack with out fear and leaders rally against the US, but if u did push the US to far there would be -*BAD WORD*- to pay and i sure wouldint wanna be anywhare near that storm. think about past events people have tried full out war on the US it didint work infact most full attacks on the US do more harm to the attacker then the attacked Pearl Harbor is a perfect example of pushing the US to far and look what happined as a result o f that?
madhaha Posted December 17, 2003 Report Posted December 17, 2003 A lot of people seem to be ignoring the fact that it'd be a relatively simple task to launch a domestic war on the US. A civil war is both more likely to occur, and to succeed that a majority of international threats. There are exceptions.
MonteZuma Posted December 17, 2003 Report Posted December 17, 2003 I can't see any sign whatsoever of a possible civil war in the US. Should an attack on the US occur, it is likely that it will be unconventional - but no surprises there since 9/11 has already demonstrated that. If I stretch my imagination I can picture the possibility of catastrophic attacks (by US nationals or others) on US infrastructure - electricity, water supply, Internet, nuclear power stations, chemical and nuclear (dirty bombs) attacks, etc, etc..... If that is what you mean by domestic war then maybe...but I'd call those acts of terrorism and not full-scale civil war. But really, this kind of speculation is pie in the sky stuff.....
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted December 17, 2003 Report Posted December 17, 2003 nukes are just simply not a viable solution. even if like dirty bombs start going off in major cities. i highly doubt a nuke respone would occur. but alot less care might start to get taken about civ. casualties from the conventional weaponry. ie even slightly supsected targets would get hit just cuss. maybe if some kind of warhead went off in like la, or ny. that much destruction would be a serious threat to the stability of the country. who knows what they will do when its at defcon whateva. playing out the nuclear strike respone manual to the T. like was said...pie.
scruff Posted December 18, 2003 Report Posted December 18, 2003 All empires fall eventually, but can you call the USA an empire?Nuclear weapons will never be used in a war, it would be a differant matter if only one country had nuclear weapson, or only one aliance, but since every major world player has an arsenal of nuclear warheads, it makes them a non-viable solution, even to someone as stupid as George Bush, I hope... Which leads me as to how such a powerfull nation can allow a man who has trouble with words over two sylables long to lead them. The USSR had thousands of nuclear weapons, submarines all over the world, a did America, and like someone said, once you have enough to wipe out the entire world, what does it matter. The EU isn't socalist (which I'm pretty -*BAD WORD*- sure it isn't), it isn't even a major governing body yet, it does not wield any real power, that still lies with the France, Britain, and Germany axis. But eventually, it will control all of Europe, or all the countrys that matter, and unsurp the USA s the major focre in the world, which in turn will be overthrown by China, as they have a huge population, a massive potential work force, and an ecomemy which can pratically suport itself without outside interfierance, because of the huge market it commands inside it's own borders.
madhaha Posted December 27, 2003 Report Posted December 27, 2003 Yes. The US is an empire. An empire is a group of countries under the control of a central authority. Nuclear weapons have already been used in war. Did you miss it? Nuclear weapons are also used in modern warfare (although usually in "low-yield" weapons) as well as a nuclear deterrant. Nuclear weapons are perfectly viable as agents of destruction. Their proliferation does not limit their effectiveness, after all not every country has the missile warning system the US does or the time and means to shoot missiles down or if worse comes to the worse the land to rebuild in. George Bush's intelligence is irrelevant and his history (and that of his family) for bankrupting companies suggests that he is highly capable of social manipulation (to get himself in power) and coverups (to shut people up after they steal their money and then block access to the records). One explaination of socialism: Whereas capitalists emphasize freedom for the individual to possess private property, socialists emphasize the well-being of the community. They strive to achieve this through many methods, including public ownership, regulation, and state-sponsored social programs. Public ownership, regulation and state-sponsored programs exist in most of the EU and even to some extent in the states. Your other opinions are unsupported/unproven.
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 techincaly, no the us doesnt qualify as an empire. for the US to be an empire. ole george would have the final say on everything. which he obviously does not, cuss his bills dont p!@#$%^&* and the states themselves have alot of say about what goes on inside of thier local political and justice system. an "empire" is ruled by an "emporer" who has supreme rule. SUPREME. no ifs and or buts. un-technicaly you could call it one if you want tho i suppose. name one occurace where a nuke has been used recently in an act of war.....they where used once what 40+ years ago? and the reality of the usage of weapons like that sunk in pretty deep and they havent used a single weapon like that since. so no, nukes are not used in modern warfare. and they are not viewed as viable methods of destuction, or they would have been using them all along. if im wrong prove and point me to a legit news site that has an article about the use of nukes in modern warfare and some example of occurances. then ill concede that point. uranium depleted s-*BAD WORD*-s dont count. im talking about a real live warhead going off. hasnt happened as far as i know. sure hope i wouldnt miss something like that hehe
Bacchus Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 uranium depleted s-*BAD WORD*-s dont count. im talking about a real live warhead going off. hasnt happened as far as i know. sure hope i wouldnt miss something like that hehe 1)that's not funny.2) depleted uranium has more or less the same impact if enough are shot. They are radioactive ammo after all. The one used in Desert Storm eradicated crops and arable land. They are the cause of iraqi children suffering from cancer and pneumonia. They are also the cause of water poisoning and food shortage (nothing grows where depleted uranium is used...this is a secondary effect. The ennemy you shoot with depleted uranium is bound to be on his knees for some years).
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 everything in life is funny. and i dont mean amusing.
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 furthurmore the two tactics are nothing alike whatsoever. a nuclear strike would most likely have the intent of killing a massive number of people all at once. bang gone. no recovery, no rebuild, dead, gone. hundreds of thousands if not millions gone in the blink of an eye. radioactive weaponry on the other hand, may have long term side effects, but its outright effect is nothing even close to what even a small warhead by todays standards would do. not to mention the fallout from such an event doing all those things that the s-*BAD WORD*-s did, only on a much larger scale.
mister manners Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 (edited) -*BAD WORD*- 'em all, nuke all europe, save some of germany, join up with northern europe, join with china and all africa, and russa, manufacture wepons of war, destroy middle east, including pakistan and israel (those whining -*BAD WORD*-s), let south america evolve untill at least 1950 (right now, they are at 1253). take over the world, and leave japan out of it, problem solved, no more american monarchy... what country did i leave out? and if u don't like radiation, look at russa now, about 10 years later, there not doing too bad america is not free... Edited December 29, 2003 by mister manners
Bacchus Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 Nuclear means instant wipe out, true. Sanctions in Iraq has killed 200 000 iraqis, not considering the effects of depleted uranium...if you measure in secs, Desert Storm doesn't mean much compared to Hiroshima. But if you measure in lives... Mr. Manner here's some facts: It happened in 1986, 1.7 million people were irradiated. 18 4oo km2 were irradiated. Cesium is found on 600 000 m2 radius. Victims numbers anywhere between 40 000 (absolute minimum) to 560 000...radiation poisoning spans generations...133.78 / 1000 children are suffering from a major hormonal disorder and/or imunal system.162.91 suffers from gastro-intestinal disease, chronic.56.46 suffer from blood diseaseetc.... there are a couple of others also, which i'm not enumerating. Those 3 alone means that 353.15 /1000 children are sick from radiation poisoning. Their children (!@#$%^&*uming they have some) will probably suffer from those same disorders. http://www.un.org/ha/chernobyl/ plz, before posting nonsense, get your facts straight.
mr. scruff Posted December 29, 2003 Report Posted December 29, 2003 eh? since when did nuclear mean instant wipe out? get YOUR facts right mister!
mister manners Posted December 30, 2003 Report Posted December 30, 2003 eh? since when did nuclear mean instant wipe out? get YOUR facts right mister! hey, were both mister... and my school don't teach me not no nothing we don't really learn anything in ss except the promotion of U.S. supremacy and hey, radiation and krypptonite make superheros right??
madhaha Posted January 1, 2004 Report Posted January 1, 2004 Er... Are you people completely re-*BAD WORD*-ed? Completely re-*BAD WORD*-ed incorrect statement: nuclear weapons have never been used in a real war! They're too powerful. No-one will ever use them! Thats what they said when they were first invented. They were first used in actual warfare in world war 2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both got levelled in case you STILL don't remember. Low yield nuclear weapons have undergone major rearch and development throughout and beyond the Cold War. Remember the talk about new underground bunker busting bombs during the Afghanistan war? Among the designs were what are in essence small underground nuclear bombs. Similarly, low yield nuclear warheads have also been tested as an alternative to conventional explosive with a very small fallout and decay time (a couple of weeks to reach "safe" levels) although these have not officially been used in war yet (how could you tell without actually being there?). Depleted Uranium rounds are basically nuclear weapons in that you're releasing radioactive dust into the environment. It mainly causes cancer and leukemia although it has also been linked to respiratory diseases. They are used because of their high m!@#$%^&* (adding weight behind the impact) and the extremely hot sparks which can burn through considerable thickness of steel. These properties are not found from any other readily availible source which is why the military are unwilling to part with them. Its cheaper, more certain to destroy a target and no-one can prove the effects are caused by DU. America has officially relaunched its program on low yield weapons recently is publicly funding it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5Q3GH941.DTL The British also continue their own research as you can see from the MoD website: http://www.mod.uk/issues/nucwhead/
Trained Posted January 2, 2004 Report Posted January 2, 2004 I was watching "Montel" with my mom, and it said "Sylvia Predicts 2004" for those of you who dont know who sylvia brown is, she is a psychic, who has solved many murder cases. She said that she is sad to say that in the re-election for president, bush is going to when (again).. I dont beleive in psychics, but I kinda do in here, she told this lady where her 15 year old daughters body was. To see her, its 700$ a person.. thats alot. Shes a "spiritual teacher", www.slyvia.org
»ZiGNoTZaG Posted January 2, 2004 Report Posted January 2, 2004 Er... Are you people completely re-*BAD WORD*-ed? Completely re-*BAD WORD*-ed incorrect statement: nuclear weapons have never been used in a real war! They're too powerful. No-one will ever use them! Thats what they said when they were first invented. They were first used in actual warfare in world war 2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki both got levelled in case you STILL don't remember. Low yield nuclear weapons have undergone major rearch and development throughout and beyond the Cold War. Remember the talk about new underground bunker busting bombs during the Afghanistan war? Among the designs were what are in essence small underground nuclear bombs. Similarly, low yield nuclear warheads have also been tested as an alternative to conventional explosive with a very small fallout and decay time (a couple of weeks to reach "safe" levels) although these have not officially been used in war yet (how could you tell without actually being there?). Depleted Uranium rounds are basically nuclear weapons in that you're releasing radioactive dust into the environment. It mainly causes cancer and leukemia although it has also been linked to respiratory diseases. They are used because of their high m!@#$%^&* (adding weight behind the impact) and the extremely hot sparks which can burn through considerable thickness of steel. These properties are not found from any other readily availible source which is why the military are unwilling to part with them. Its cheaper, more certain to destroy a target and no-one can prove the effects are caused by DU. America has officially relaunched its program on low yield weapons recently is publicly funding it: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5Q3GH941.DTL The British also continue their own research as you can see from the MoD website: http://www.mod.uk/issues/nucwhead/alas you fail to provide a valid point and see only the text you want. the fact remains that no large or low scale nuclear devices have been used in an act of war in many years. woopitie doo so theve been desgning them and bulding them. thats still not using them. good try tho. to skirt the real issue here.
madhaha Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 I repeat: They were used in world war 2, but people keep on ignoring the biggest war of all time. Also other wars if you count DU.
BDwinsAlt Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 anyone know what the rapsure is? its we the chirstians disappear and go to heaven. well when this happens ( just hear my out) the antichirst will rule the world for 7 yearas he will establish peace and rule 10 kingdoms. he will rebuild the temple of God and cliam he is god. The end is near so be prepared remember what i tell you so you will know when it happens. JESUS is coming. So get saved!
Aileron Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 Gosh, radiation is probably the most overestimated health hazard. It is either Alpha and Beta particles that cannot penetrate paper or Gamma particles that cannot carry that much energy. It takes a LOT of radiation to do permanent damage to somebody. Radiation is pretty much a boogieman that everybody fears, but doesn't really hurt anybody. Depleted Uranium is safe, atleast its safe enough to put in a device intended to kill people. Before they are put into weapons, every sample is put to a radiation tester to see if they put off harmfull amounts of radiation. As for your doubt as to weather "safe" levels are acceptable, may I remind you who exactly makes these standards. First off, they are extremely intelligent and well educated. Most likely, they have forgotten more about medicine and physics than you and I will likely ever know. Not only that, but also took whatever value they got and divided it by a safety factor, and considering public outcry, that value is high. In layman's terms, the announced "safe" level is probably 100 times less than the real safe level. Also, they have invested interest in making the annouced safe level the actual safe level. If somebody gets hurt after recieving a "safe" dosage of radiation, those who made the levels gets @$$|=U(|<3|) by lawyers. If they want to keep their careers, the NRC scientists have to announce a truly safe level. Yes, some nuclear facilities might put pressure on them to lower the standards, but environmental groups put pressure to raise them. All in all, it is in their best interest to set the announce safe level at a level which is indeed safe. So stop putting quotation marks around 'safe'. Those levels are proclaimed as safe for a reason by people who would only like to make the standard higher than necessary. Thus, the real question is whether or not the s-*BAD WORD*-s comply with NRC regulations. On one hand, the companies who make them probably make more profits off of lower standard products. One the other hand, NRC inspectors are there to prevent that from happening. Overall, there is a huge difference between a depleted uranium s-*BAD WORD*- and a nuclear weapon. The former is a device that can theorhetically exist without a nuclear component, the latter it is necessary. They are not even close to the same, so don't act like they are. If somebody was shooting a depleted uranium s-*BAD WORD*- at me, I would be more worried about the thing blowing me to pieces rather than the very slight chances that the tiny fragments of uranium could possibly be radioactive.
Coenny Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 Hah from polotics to religion, you have got to love the resourcefulness of the chirstians as for the US:1) we will fall sooner or later2) i most likely will be dead, so i dont care3) i cant really say i agree or dissagree with what bush is doing, america shouldnt be involved with as many conflicts not pertaining to us, but it does keep us in the kinda of bully mode. and very few ppl actually stand up to the bully, (for an example of this, go to an elementary school)4) use of nuclear weapons is a horrible idea, but inevitable(sp?) i think this will be part of the fall of the US and most powerful countries at the moment
Dav Posted January 3, 2004 Report Posted January 3, 2004 i agree coe, sooner or later the US will lose power due to less backing from other western nations. i personally disagree with bush, there was no real reason for the invation of iraq. safddam was cooperative and rested by un guidelines. and nukes, lets hope that they are never used. on the topic, iraq, north korea and some oter nations are not allud WMDs, however the western nations can have as many as they like cus thay pretty much call the shots in the un with the UK, USA on the perminate security council. that ius just wrong.
Recommended Posts