Nuclear Proliferation OK for Some

[Matt2]

alright BOBDN. Go build your bombshelter. Oh wait, that wont work, these are bunker busters...

I'm done with this arguement. I cant believe this thread. This discussion is on par with crop circles and black helicopters.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2
alright BOBDN. Go build your bombshelter. Oh wait, that wont work, these are bunker busters...

I'm done with this arguement. I cant believe this thread. This discussion is on par with crop circles and black helicopters.

Again, you're the one with the apocalyptic humor. I'm saying they build them to use them. Cafe nukes. Whatever they want to call them to make them pallatable. I consider the Bush administration a group of madmen drunk with power. You will obviously support ANYTHING they do. There are others like you.

Not nuclear armaggedon but I strongly believe these people will use them and make it sound OK. They'll find the right circumstances and then the genie is out of the bottle.

After, Dr. Strangelove is Defence Secretary.

"How I stopped worrying and learned to love the bomb."

 

[Moonbeam]

Well my opinion is that Bush is kicking people in the ass that we didn't have these weapons available for him to use. There wouldn't be any of this, "Where's the WMD, George?" if he could have created huge gaping radioactive caverns under Iraq. He could just point to those and say, "See, we destroyed them all."

 

[LunarRay]

Good point...

 

[BOBDN]

Moonbeam

Excellent point.

 

[EXman]

Better they develop nuclear weapons for us, than become unemployed and freelance for N. Korea or Iran.

best post here folks can you say Former Soviet Union? those guys are making bank in N Korea.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: EXman

Better they develop nuclear weapons for us, than become unemployed and freelance for N. Korea or Iran.

best post here folks can you say Former Soviet Union? those guys are making bank in N Korea.

Ridiculous. Leave the making of false reasons to Bush and Co. They are much more experienced liars.

The idea American scientists are going to freelance for NK or Iran is just laughable.

 

[EXman]

The idea American scientists are going to freelance for NK or Iran is just laughable.

Don't assume these people have no greed. The supergun Iraq was making years and years ago was made by Gerald Bull (canadian that worked and lives in the US for a good portion of his life) who was slighted by the US defense industry. I think you are making an assumption here that no American scientists would ever do something like that when they have in the past.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
IHypocrisy Bush style.

Like Bush hypocricy is something new and surprising to people...lol. ;-)

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: EXman

Better they develop nuclear weapons for us, than become unemployed and freelance for N. Korea or Iran.

best post here folks can you say Former Soviet Union? those guys are making bank in N Korea.

So we need to keep a nuclear program going because people might go elsewhere? Wait, what about cellular and molecular biologists who ran into funding problems? Well send me a check Uncle Sam BABY!

The Soviet scientist either moved or starved. Not so in the US. Oh they might have to do something else, but these are bright people who have opportunities not availible to USSR counterparts. As far as to greed, I am sure working for a despot already pays much, much more than hanging around US facilities. If they are in it for the cash, they are already gone.

Could it happen? A great many things are possible. So is Area 51.

Send me my check now please

 

[Czar]

What this does is go against the taboo of using nuclear weapons, once that stops being something people should NEVER do more and more n nuclear bombs will be made and used, this is not something we or anyone should want.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Czar
What this does is go against the taboo of using nuclear weapons, once that stops being something people should NEVER do more and more n nuclear bombs will be made and used, this is not something we or anyone should want.

That is a good point, and the main one I think. We are preaching against other countries developing nukes (Iran, NK, and others) while we go forward with our program. Technically, we may be allowed to do this. Technically others may not. Screw technicalities. What it comes down to is that if you are powerful enough, you can get more so, and no one else can. Well, that works great if you are so americentric that you cannot see other countries POV, but people elsewhere are NOT Americans, and have their own national and cultural viewpoints. What does this matter? Well, Iran (or anyone) hears the US saying "do as I say, not as I do". This works about as well on a country as it does on a 4 year old.

If the US is going to hold others to a standard, then it needs to as well, and legalism be damned.

 

[jjones]

Yep, it's hypocrisy, which is why I advocate that every country should have nukes. Hell, we should give them away with our humanitarian aid packages. The sooner everyone has nukes, the better off we'll all be. Otherwise it's just AD and not MAD. When the whole world's gone MAD maybe we'll realize we can put away these toys for good.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jjones
Yep, it's hypocrisy, which is why I advocate that every country should have nukes. Hell, we should give them away with our humanitarian aid packages. The sooner everyone has nukes, the better off we'll all be. Otherwise it's just AD and not MAD. When the whole world's gone MAD maybe we'll realize we can put away these toys for good.

You don't understand. I have God on my side.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jjones
Yep, it's hypocrisy, which is why I advocate that every country should have nukes. Hell, we should give them away with our humanitarian aid packages. The sooner everyone has nukes, the better off we'll all be. Otherwise it's just AD and not MAD. When the whole world's gone MAD maybe we'll realize we can put away these toys for good.

They will dimantle one (titan or minuteman) for another if they do indeed build them to stay legal by treaty.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

While I haven't read this whole thread, I did read the article, and one might note: The nations whom we do NOT want having Nuclear weapons are nations who have a HISTORY of violence against their neighbors and their own people. In other words, we don't want those who are AGAINST Human Natural and Civil Rights to get hold of these kinds of weapons. Seems like kind of a no-brainer if you ask me, but then, people who like to scream "Hypocrisy!" rarely consider the principles and IDEAS involved in these matters.

Jason

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
While I haven't read this whole thread, I did read the article, and one might note: The nations whom we do NOT want having Nuclear weapons are nations who have a HISTORY of violence against their neighbors and their own people. In other words, we don't want those who are AGAINST Human Natural and Civil Rights to get hold of these kinds of weapons. Seems like kind of a no-brainer if you ask me, but then, people who like to scream "Hypocrisy!" rarely consider the principles and IDEAS involved in these matters.

History of human/civil rights violations? The US Army falls under that category that spans hundreds of years.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
While I haven't read this whole thread, I did read the article, and one might note: The nations whom we do NOT want having Nuclear weapons are nations who have a HISTORY of violence against their neighbors and their own people. In other words, we don't want those who are AGAINST Human Natural and Civil Rights to get hold of these kinds of weapons. Seems like kind of a no-brainer if you ask me, but then, people who like to scream "Hypocrisy!" rarely consider the principles and IDEAS involved in these matters.

History of human/civil rights violations? The US Army falls under that category that spans hundreds of years.

Name an army that doesn't. The US armed forces TODAY are the best trained, and best "behaving" army on the planet. If you believe anything else, you are either in a fantasy world, or French.

 

[amok]

The idea American scientists are going to freelance for NK or Iran is just laughable.

I wouldn't say laughable. Unlikely, but not impossible.

As for the major issue here, there is absolutely NO reason for the development of these weapons if not for combat use. Deterence (the only reason we have nukes at all) is easily handled by our current arsenal. The only thing I can think of as a possible explanation is to deter people from building hardened bunker sites, but that wouldn't fly either unless we were willing to demonstrate our willingness to USE these weapons.

As for it being safe to detonate these nukes underground, that is utter BS. We do not possess a penetrator capable of going deep enough to contain the radiation from even a meager 5kT device. If they want to hit deep bunkers, they should work on developing a better penetrator, not rig a small nuke into the existing ones.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
While I haven't read this whole thread, I did read the article, and one might note: The nations whom we do NOT want having Nuclear weapons are nations who have a HISTORY of violence against their neighbors and their own people. In other words, we don't want those who are AGAINST Human Natural and Civil Rights to get hold of these kinds of weapons. Seems like kind of a no-brainer if you ask me, but then, people who like to scream "Hypocrisy!" rarely consider the principles and IDEAS involved in these matters.

History of human/civil rights violations? The US Army falls under that category that spans hundreds of years.

Name an army that doesn't. The US armed forces TODAY are the best trained, and best "behaving" army on the planet. If you believe anything else, you are either in a fantasy world, or French.

I believe something else.