Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Corsair on April 28, 2004, 08:36:21 pm
-
http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425
I hope to god that this is exaggeration. I mean, what's the point? What's the use of having the ability to destroy the world 500 times over when we can already do it 400 times?
Note the "Vote for John Kerry" ad in the middle of the article. :D
-
Well he's already spent several dozens of billions of dollars on a war to avenge less people (3,000) than die every year from gun-crime in America (11,000), so what's a few billion on nukes?
-
You have a good point there Anon, We(America) don't look at our internal problems very much that we have within our own country.
-
Methinks that's the point of all these short, victorious wars.
-
even from a strictly machiavellian point of veiw this is unnecisary.
a few billion to make sure they still work I could undestand, is this acurate?
we don't need new ones, that could got to new stealth bombers or something somewhat useful.
-
This might include developement of the e-bomb. you know anti electronic bomb.
-
well that would be usefull
-
Originally posted by an0n
Methinks that's the point of all these short, victorious wars.
The smartest thing you have ever said, bar none.
-
It's also one of the more obvious.
-
Not, unfortunately, obvious enough for voting public of the United States.
Its bizarre: we can have the whole thing shoved in our face day in and day out and still not actually absorb any of it and act upon it.
-
That's because the masses don't care about politics.
As long as there's food on the table and gates to hold back the barbarians, they're happy.
Nothing ever changes....
-
And don't forget the TV, the people wouldn't survive a day without an 8-hour escape from reality...into someone else's. I might be developing a Sideshow Bob complex, but I'de gladly rid the world of it, for a few decades at least.
-
TV was fine until the invention of the 'romantic sit-com' and 'reality TV'.
Endemol destroyed what little educational value television had left when it unleashed Big Brother.
And whose fault is Endemol? That's right, the Dutch.
-
Originally posted by an0n
As long as there's food on the table and gates to hold back the barbarians, they're happy.
With all the money wasted in things like that, it's a wonder you still have food on your table...
I'm curious, how is the annual budget balance for the US gvt? How much debt?
-
Originally posted by an0n
And whose fault is Endemol? That's right, the Dutch.
Teehee... Our brainwashing plan is coming along quite nicely :drevil:
No really, in America, that kind of shows are the only ones that are actually going to be a hit :p The few who still want intelligent programs are far outnumbered so the producers won't even look in their direction.
Unlike here. Here we still have nice shows. But they tried to bring some of them to the US as well and it failed miserably. :doubt: I think that most Americans don't even want intelligent TV programming.
-
TV is opium for the masses...
-
Tiara: They want to bring Kopspijkers to the States.
an0n: Yeah, guilty as charged.
Mikhael: Look at the **** our elections brought us. Not once, but friggin twice after the first attempt failed in what, 3 months?
-
Hehe, to an non-American this looks really, really ridiculous. Original anti-nuclear treaties were designed that way that no new countries could develop their own weaponry and those countries who already had it were supposed to minimalize their own weaponries.
Now current US administration goes "omg nukes!" and proceeds to throw a rather secular oil country into turmoil, while increasing his stockpile. Also, WTF is it with the small tactical warheads? Dumbass.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Tiara: They want to bring Kopspijkers to the States.
I know, but they have to tone it down so much it isn't even funny. No more jokes about the government, no more of almost anhything that makes the show what it is.
an0n: Yeah, guilty as charged.
Yes, and soon we will bring legalized crack into the States and take over the brainwashed stoners :drevil:
Mikhael: Look at the **** our elections brought us. Not once, but friggin twice after the first attempt failed in what, 3 months?
Heh, *nods*. This was an awesome topic for Kopspijkers btw :D It cracked me up how they ridiculed our government's policy :lol: And sadly, I agreed with most of it.
-
On topic:
Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon.
And they wonder why the US government has such a large deficit... :blah:
But then again, I didn't expect anything less from, B*sh &Co. "The rest of the world can't have any nukes but we can have enough to carpet bomb the entire friggin' planet."
-
I hope Sweden would revive it's nuclear program. Wonder what B*sh and Co. would do? [I am a Finn.]
-
Originally posted by Tiara
On topic:
Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon.
Does a $6 billion dollar proton accelator have and civil uses. Does heavy hydrogen isotope allow for better nuclear reactors? Also is any of the increases going towards fission reactors?
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Does a $6 billion dollar proton accelator have and civil uses.
Tritium has little civil use. So i guess not.
Does heavy hydrogen isotope allow for better nuclear reactors?
It boosts the explosive yield of a nuke. If you put this heavy element into a nuclear reactor you'd soon have an overload if you don't use moderators in the reactor itself. So, for reactors it's basically useless unless youi want to turn them into nukes themselves.
Also is any of the increases going towards fission reactors? [/B]
Not according to the article anyway.
-
Opps I meant fussion reactors.
*anything that uses super heated plasma must be cool*
-
Originally posted by redmenace
Opps I meant fussion reactors.
*anything that uses super heated plasma must be cool*
Not in the article either. This is basically one of the many f*ckups B*sh has made.
Health insurance? Nah... NUCLEAR WEAPONS! YAY! :doubt:
-
**** is a borderline lunatic. On that score there's probably little point trying to rationalise his decisions.
-
Originally posted by IPAndrews
**** is a borderline lunatic. On that score there's probably little point trying to rationalise his decisions.
Okay. Who put his name in the banned word list :cool:
-
dude, that has been done months ago........
-
In reality people just hand him requests and he just signs away. I don't think he sits there and says lets increase nuclear weapons spending while I condomn weapons of mass destruction. Not that the alternative I am mentioning is any better.
-
It's obligatory :) (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html)
-
You forgot the alien threat...
Which, while being a joke, may, in actuality, be a very real problem... we just don't know. Maybe a stargate really does exist and the show and movie is a government initiated endevour...
I didn't read the article, but why not develop new weapons and scrap the old?
~Beowulf
-
I very much doubt that the majority of that money will be going to nuclear weapons.
They're probably trying to hide the money inside a project that no-one is looking at, then funnel it into a more public place and go "Look! Money!".
-
Originally posted by redmenace
In reality people just hand him requests and he just signs away. I don't think he sits there and says lets increase nuclear weapons spending while I condomn weapons of mass destruction. Not that the alternative I am mentioning is any better.
Hes on record as saying he wants to develop more nukes so the reality is hes doing exactly what you say. Its only evil countrys that dont deserve nukes anyways, the sort that abuse human rights and start wars and invade other people.
-
Originally posted by an0n
...They're probably trying to hide the money inside a project that no-one is looking at...
Yes: their pockets. :p
And a while ago they were comparing Brazil to Saddam's Iraq and North Korea for not letting their inspectors into our uranium refinement plants. Like our government would be spending any real money on weapons development...
:doubt:
(even though it would be actually kinda cool if they were)
-
Deuterium is used in heavy-water fission reactors
the proton accelerator does have research uses
That being said - schrub is a total ****ing moron, but everything he does makes sense from the following two words: apocolyptic postmillenialist
-
The point is whether Brazil has signed some Anti-Nuclear Weaponry Treatis. If not, it could develop whatever it wanted (and keep silent, a la Israel), if yes - then too bad, sanctions, be my guest.
-
Originally posted by Cabbie
It's obligatory :) (http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html)
Hah, that anim still makes me laugh. Wtf? ^^
Welcome to HLP, btw. ;)
:welcome:
-
Dude, this isn't a real newstory. It's a friggin column chock full of the writers personal opinion, based on a report done by non-profit activists. You're not getting the full story here. Is the content dumbfounding? Yes. Do we get to see the entire picture? No.
-
you sound like a Schrub-apologist
the man is a ****ing psychopath - he is having us build NEW nuclear weapons
-
And you like to jump to conclusions. Do you have problems reading? I said it was shocking. I don't think I defended **** or anything in the 6 sentences that I wrote.
I am making clear an observation that this may not be the full picture. Anyone who makes their own judgement when not having both sides is a poo poo head.
-
but what if that is just all bull****, like I said even from a power mad dictator position this doesn't make sence, makeing new nukes when we could be makeing more tanks or fighter planes, or cruse missles, or orbital bombardment cannons or something that could posably be used.
what happened to the anti-nuke missle system, I'd much rather us be dumping cash on that then build more nukes, hell from the power mad dictator position that thing would alow us to use the nukes we have wich we currently can't.
-
Originally posted by Janos
The point is whether Brazil has signed some Anti-Nuclear Weaponry Treatis. If not, it could develop whatever it wanted (and keep silent, a la Israel), if yes - then too bad, sanctions, be my guest.
Brazil has signed treaties and abides to them letting inspectors on non-classified areas of nuclear research and refinement facilities. The United States wants us to sign more restricting treaties, which would allow inspectors to arrive without notice and have full unrestricted access to the facilities.
Our government basically said "screw you" and proceeded to ignore further attempts, from what I gather. At least some stuff they're doing right.
:p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but what if that is just all bull****, like I said even from a power mad dictator position this doesn't make sence, makeing new nukes when we could be makeing more tanks or fighter planes, or cruse missles, or orbital bombardment cannons or something that could posably be used.
what happened to the anti-nuke missle system, I'd much rather us be dumping cash on that then build more nukes, hell from the power mad dictator position that thing would alow us to use the nukes we have wich we currently can't.
Er, you realize that if the US ever got a missile defense system working all that it would do would be to prompt rival countries with nuclear capabilities to start a preemptive nuclear strike as soon as possible (probably before the system went online) in the basis of "we might not get another chance", right?
;)
-
The "might not get another chance" strategy has been proven successful in school yards and cafeterias world over.
-
****'s behavior makes perfect sense for a apocolyptic postmillenialist in his position
basically: He's nut! - but in a known fashion
-
Originally posted by J3Vr6
The "might not get another chance" strategy has been proven successful in school yards and cafeterias world over.
Would you want to have your greatest enemy be able to bombard you with nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation? :p
-
Hell no. I am that type of person to take advantage when I see that the pickins' are good. I'd be that one leader in the bunker in some 3rd world country who has more bombs than hospitals with my finger on the button, stroking my pointy beard and laughing til I burst of pee.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2c3604%2c1195568%2c00.html
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
but what if that is just all bull****, like I said even from a power mad dictator position this doesn't make sence, makeing new nukes when we could be makeing more tanks or fighter planes, or cruse missles, or orbital bombardment cannons or something that could posably be used.
**** wants tactical nukes, not strategic ones. Stuff that can be used:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1009497,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2830933.stm
Date on that last article is ironic
Just read that article last night Kazan, kindof worrying.
-
hmmm, I still don't think they'd be usable without risking a all out nuclear war with someone.
-
the guy isn't bull****ting - he described apocolyptic postmillenialism to you
-
tac nukes are a bad idea - the Daisy Cutter and the MOAB can do the same thing without making hard-radiation radioisotopes
-
Originally posted by Janos
I hope Sweden would revive it's nuclear program. Wonder what B*sh and Co. would do? [I am a Finn.]
the retards in charge got some laws passed that won't even allow research on stuff like nuclear power reactors, so it's highly unlikely. I'll also take the opportunity to blame the 1940's generation for everything that is wrong with the country today. especially, the decision to shut down all nuclear power plants without even making sure to have something other than polish coal power to cover for it.
as for the topic, I find developing new nuclear weapons a waste of money. keeping [some of the] the old up to shape might be justifiable, but wtf... is there a space invasion coming that the public doesn't know about?
-
posably
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
hmmm, I still don't think they'd be usable without risking a all out nuclear war with someone.
Only 6-7 nations are known to have nukes so theres around 200 more you could use them on:
http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/nukesirishtimes.html
**** wants the nukes for the war on terror.
-
K, if that happens, the Russians will then nuke the **** out of Chechenya - and maybe Georgia also. Score one for the good gu--- oh wait
-
Great...more nukes...what the hell do you need new nukes for? Where are you going to dispose of the waste? A mere portion of the stockpile would reduce any threatening country to nuclear apocalypse and screw the entire world over in the process (a nulcear weapon is not a local, regional or national thing, a single detonation can potentially bring world wide damage or devastation)....
They could spend the money to maintain what they need (fine others have nukes, a deterent is sufficient)...decomission the rest, spend the money on reducing the countries dependance on oil reserves and stop playing russian roulet in the middle east over oil.
Insanity...its pure lack of forward thinking and its long term suicide.
-
**** doesnt care, hes going to heaven
-
Originally posted by IceFire
They could spend the money to maintain what they need (fine others have nukes, a deterent is sufficient)...decomission the rest, spend the money on reducing the countries dependance on oil reserves and stop playing russian roulet in the middle east over oil.
Detente will not work forever. It's a matter of time before someone who is unafraid of, or immune to, the consequences of utilizing nuclear weapons in combat goes ahead and sets one or more off. Do not doubt for an instant that, say, North Korea, would be above using some of their arsenal if they felt threatened even with a conventional war.
Or worse, an accident.
It's only worked so far because the main players on the board (all political wisecracks aside) have maintained enough maturity to not use them. Yet.
-
Originally posted by Janos
K, if that happens, the Russians will then nuke the **** out of Chechenya - and maybe Georgia also. Score one for the good gu--- oh wait
Not a chance. Maybe in the 1930's, but there'd be no way for them to keep it secret now. That's the sole reason you didn't see the whole of the Russian army exterminate or expel the Chechen population in it's entirety. Too easy to get caught and too many consequences if they do.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
It's only worked so far because the main players on the board (all political wisecracks aside) have maintained enough maturity to not use them. Yet.
Uh-huh, and thats why **** wants weapons he can use.
-
Tac-Nukes are both over and underestimated by you, guys.
A tac-nuke would wipe out an entire battalion of tanks, an entire airfield, or a whole navy group.
However it won't: casue nuclear winter, destroy a city (more like a city block), contaminate a huge area.
After the Cuban Crisis MacNemara had a meeting with some Cuban advisor (in the '70 I guess) and almost fell off his chair when he was told the other half of the story: Cuba had Tac-Nukes beside the medium range city killers, and Soviet submarines were cruising with tac-nuke torpedoes.
Imagine: if the US decided to invade, the army wouldn't have made it to the island, and the casulties of WWII Russia would be nitpick compared to that slaughter.
The problem is that it IS possible to wage war with these things - and casue massive casulties.
What B_U_S_H seems to forget is that they're completely useless against the 3rd world guerillas.
-
Or against anyone willing to say "****, if they're using Tacs, let's just blow the ****ers to hell with Strats".
-
Originally posted by Flaser
What B_U_S_H seems to forget is that they're completely useless against the 3rd world guerillas.
But if brains were gasoline, he wouldn't have enough to run an ant's go-kart around the inside of a donut. He's just another power-addicted idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and constipation of the mind.
In other words; he forgets stuff more often then he remembers them.
-
The original article sounds more like a rant than someone reporting news. I have a harder time listening to/agreeing with/believing rants than I do with news. Although most news is one-sided anyway... "-B-U-S-H- (stupid filter thing) EVIL DEVIL WHO RUIN COUNTRY FOR EVAR!!!!!11one."
Meh...
-
Ulala a news report is this happened here today, bare minimum stuff. You might get a bit of basic background stuff but unless you read these "rants", from both sides, you're arent going to get the full picture. If you check the guys homepage you'll see his listed sources for most of the major bits, which is more than the majority of people who write these things do.
http://www.monbiot.com/
Well worth spending some time reading his stuff, he makes some good points whether you agree with him or not.
Originally posted by Flaser
Tac-Nukes are both over and underestimated by you, guys.
A tac-nuke would wipe out an entire battalion of tanks, an entire airfield, or a whole navy group......
.....What B_U_S_H seems to forget is that they're completely useless against the 3rd world guerillas.
You're talking about the tac-nukes currently in the US aresenal, **** wants smaller ones that can be used for fighting guerillas. Stuff that could be used on the caves in tora bora for example.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Hah, that anim still makes me laugh. Wtf? ^^
Welcome to HLP, btw. ;)
:welcome:
Hey, thank for the welcome! :yes:
-
It was prooven in Vietnam and Korea that bombing, no matter how accurate or how powerfull can't solve a guerilla situation inless you're going for utter annihilation of the area - in other words genocide.
Now we see in Iraq that even invasion can't solve it, unless you can marshall a force in greater numbers and with a social support.
The Soviets managed to do this to the Eastern Block, since everybody welcomed them after the Nazis, and they quickly molded the ranks of national political and cultural elite into their own fold - or subdueded/killed them.
America is too hypocritic and the Islam world is too alien to do so.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Not a chance. Maybe in the 1930's, but there'd be no way for them to keep it secret now. That's the sole reason you didn't see the whole of the Russian army exterminate or expel the Chechen population in it's entirety. Too easy to get caught and too many consequences if they do.
You know what the Russians are doing there right now? For example: They just dismantled all refugee camps and are sending all civilians back into Chechenya, while their special forces are busily "sweeping villages clean of terrorists" - in other terms they are killing just about anyone they encounter. No one is saying anything, because, well, it's Russia. I doubt that if the first tactical nukes are indeed deployed in "anti-insurgent" roles, the threshold of using them in more vague situations (as in Chechenya!) will lower significantly.
-
The only reason **** wants these mini-nukes is so he can use them. The warheads in the existing arsenal are just too big to use without causing a massive international incident, and most likely a Third World War. He figures that if he can get nukes down to a very small size, then he can use them without fear of reprisals from any country. Also, don't forget that a helluva lot of this money will go to big defence contractors (eg Lockheed Martin), who built the US's Cold War-era tactical and strategic delivery systems (eg Minuteman ICBMs IIRC). These corporations make large donations to the political parties...
Personally, I think he's got weapons that can do a similar level of damage already. Large fuel-air warheads would be perfectly suited to this kind of attack (IIRC, this type of weapon was used in the Afghan mountains), and they don't have the stigma of nuclear weapons.
Also, as has been said, as soon as **** uses any form of nuke, it'll be open season. It won't be long before somebody breaks out the multi-megatonnes...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Personally, I think he's got weapons that can do a similar level of damage already. Large fuel-air warheads would be perfectly suited to this kind of attack (IIRC, this type of weapon was used in the Afghan mountains), and they don't have the stigma of nuclear weapons.
yeah exactly, this is just stupid beond comprehension
-
Fuel Air bombs are quite harsh - I mean do you want your lungs sucked inside out?
-
Originally posted by vyper
Fuel Air bombs are quite harsh - I mean do you want your lungs sucked inside out?
yeah, why not? looks like fun, if one goes by the animation on this website:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm
-
FAEs are nasty but they havent the same potential for destruction as nukes. Against a cave system they're useless for example. Theres also the fact that they're massive, requiring a transport plane like a C130 to drop them, and you dont want to be flying a slow C130 into the afghan mountains full of strelas with one of these things on board.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/moab.htm
-
Aerosol bombs, baby, aerosol bombs - TOS-1 Buratino comes to mind. Combined with high-precision missile, an aerosol bomb is The Munition to destroy caves, bunkers, enforced buildings and so on with. However, it has one significant weakness: as the aerosol explosive is prone to catch fire (surprise!), small campfires or even barbeques can limit the destructive capability of such bombs.
-
Faes are aerosol bombs, and buratino's a rocket launcher, its not in the same league as nukes
-
Buratino is a rocket launcher which carries an aerosol bomb in it. The GIF looks like airburst/aerosol (the one linked), but I think Buratino works somehow differently. Russians are whackos anyways.