Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: magatsu1 on September 23, 2004, 04:44:43 pm
-
we're all gonna die (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3676008.stm)
and with the Israeli Air Force buying a load of US Bunker Buster Bombs....
-
Mr Aghazadeh said his country is willing to take measures to increase confidence in Iran and will continue to co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
At the weekend, the IAEA passed a resolution urging Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and grant access to IAEA inspectors.
:wtf: Don't those two statements seem at odds?
-
oh ffs guys, 7 countries already have the bomb, several of them at least as conftrontational as Iran (namely India, Pakistan and Israel). The world is not going to suddenly explode if the mullahs get their hands on it. Besides, who are we to decide who can and can't posses nukes.
Though the possibility of Israel striking Iran before they can get their nuke program operational is very real and very scary. The **** would hit the fan in a big way if that happened. The recent sale of nuclear (I believe they're nuclear, right?) bunker busters isn't really putting my mind at ease.
-
I think they're like SABOTs, in that they have a quasi nuclear content but aren't nukes as such.
-
More nukes != good
Regardless of who has them
-
Our nuclear subs, and new warships are switching from good, reliable Unix control to...
wait for it...
Windows 2000!!!
I feel so much safer now....
-
You think they actually run on important stuff on a commercial OS? Are you crazy? Uh-uh. They have their own internal operating system that is fundmentally incompatible with others.
-
Haha, you wish. Politicians control the military, don't forget that. ;)
-
Color me retarded. What potential value would becoming a nuclear power, however small, be to Iran? Does anyone actually think they'd use them?
and against whom? They've been relatively quiet since the end of the Iran-Iraq war...
-
Israel did a similar attack agains Iraq back in the day. I could see it happen again...I'm sure it would work and set Iran back quite a bit if they did. So I guess in my mind, I have no question that they could do it. The question on how things should go down there is entirely different one too...
Should Iran have nukes? No...should Canada have nukes (I don't think we have en), nope...should the USA or Russia or anyone really have a whole whack of them...no not really either. I can see the need for them for entirely different purposes. If we need to blast an asteroid then I'm all for them building a nuke and expending as many as necessary on the asteroid. Against people, no. Its a genie that should never be opened...its too indiscriminate.
But realism sets in. Nobody is going to lay their weapons down. On the other hand, nobody else really needs to have them. Pakistan and India balance each other out with their nuke capabilities as did the USSR and the USA back during the Cold War. What does Iran have to balance out by...thats my question.
-
Israel. Iran hates Israel, Israel hates Iran. One has nukes, one wants nukes. Basic arms race stuff.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
You think they actually run on important stuff on a commercial OS? Are you crazy? Uh-uh. They have their own internal operating system that is fundmentally incompatible with others.
You think the people that approve these 'purchases' have a ****ing clue what they're doing?
They just pick the one with the free junket to Hawaii.
-
Actually, they do know what they're doing. Or at least the Navy does. I know people who work on their off-the-shelf upgrade plans.
-
:eek2:
I'm afraid now....
*hugs cats tightly
-
It's not an upgraded OS. It isn't streamlined either, it is Windows 2000 Server software, running through a high-speed Fire-wire Network. Yes, things like 'Media Player' have been removed, but that's just to stop Radar ops watching Pron or kazaa'd movies when they should be scanning for exocets ;)
But the kernel is still a run of the mill Windows 2000 Service pack 3 :(
-
Ok, think of it this way:
Who's Israel gonna use a nuke on?
The Middle East.
Who's Iran gonna use it on?
Worst case: The Western European countries (I don't think they have the range to attack the US).
What happens if they do that?
KABLAM! Three nukes to their one, and then the entire military might of the world's only superpower right on them.
Come on, what could they do to the US or anyone else?
And while Windows 2k3 is unstable when compared to Linux, or Unix, you still have a lot of reliabilty when compared to, say, Windows XP or 98. After all, the 2000 series is designed for stability. They get unstable when people put lots of crap on them, and I doubt that would really happen on a Navy boat.
-
You know, they may be telling the truth and just be doing it for power requirements, after all, anyone who knows which way the wind is blowing knows that oil is a pretty unstable thing to be relying on right now ;)
-
A nuclear war is impossible. No one can win. They call it M.A.D (Mutual Assured Destruction).
Fitting? Yes it is.
Example:
Side A fires nukes at side B
Side B has no choice but to fire nukes at side A
Both sides die. Game over.
-
Guys guys, don't get so worried. Nations who seek nukes do so, and have done so since the 50s, as a detterent. No nuclear power has ever been invaded, guess why? If Iran wants nukes, or North Korea or whoever (talking only about nations here, run by sane men, and yes, that does include both Iran and NK) thats probably to stop Someone (India, Israel, the US, Japan, Russia, take your pick) from invading them.
Do I support nuclear proliferation? Of course not. Give me power, and I would destroy all nukes on Earth. But things aren't going to suddenly change if tommorow I wake up and there are 30,271 nukes on Earth instead of 30,270 that there was yesterday.
What I'm really worried about is what will happen if a country is attacked, and a powerful country at that, in order to prevent it from getting nukes. What, you think Iran will just sit there and take it?
Iraq is just a little ways away, Israel is within striking distance, Syria probably wouldn't mind hopping in if something started going down, the whole Afghanistan/North Pakistan thing is kind of shifty and the second anyone looks at Israel sideways, you can count on Uncle Sam joining the fray...so, not good.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
It's not an upgraded OS. It isn't streamlined either, it is Windows 2000 Server software, running through a high-speed Fire-wire Network. Yes, things like 'Media Player' have been removed, but that's just to stop Radar ops watching Pron or kazaa'd movies when they should be scanning for exocets ;)
But the kernel is still a run of the mill Windows 2000 Service pack 3 :(
Source?
-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/06/ams_goes_windows_for_warships/
Was posted by aldo here a while ago.
-
ok, lets look at the situation and why Iran can't be alowed to get nukes. simply becase they can't get nukes, if they try and no one else stops them Israel will bomb them, when that happens Iran and probly two or three (at least) other Arabic nations will bomb them back and they'll probly bomb us in Iraq while they're at it, and even if they don't we can see were this will lead.
Iran being alowed to get nukes == world war three, in the literal traditional sence. now this could in the end fix a lot of problems, but I'd rather do things a diferent way.
-
Actually, all they need are 3 or 4 short range nuclear missiles and they could wipe out half the US military in one strike.
-
[OT]Governments (and big companies) have access and can modify MS sources... [/OT]
Iran has not yet been invaded by US troops, so you can stay assured that there is no real danger...
Otherwise their oil wells would already have been under some US company exploitation...
On the other side, given what US military declares they are pretty much short handed now, as they already have two major regional crisis (afghanistan and iraq) and in theory might have only enough resources to face humanitarian stuff and not military one...
Then, if you look a bit further and US would be able to call in UN forces in both sides then it's Iran in bad straits... Just look at their borders and where the majority of US troops is...
With an hostile army on both sides i wouldn't feel easy at all...
-
the stratigic situation does not look good for them, but we can't actualy do anything ourselves due to our gorius leaders ****ing justification for the last war.
-
Bobbau, stay assured that in case of real need USAF will dispatch a few B1 or B2 and end the problem the israely way...
-
generaly we don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, but honestly, we've streched things about as far as we can push them, I don't think we'd be able to do anyhting unless we get the UN or at least NATO _asking_ us to help, we can't bring up the subject, becase it's exactly the argument we used for Iraq, and that sort of crashed on us.
-
Originally posted by ngtm1r
Actually, they do know what they're doing. Or at least the Navy does. I know people who work on their off-the-shelf upgrade plans.
Ah, I didn't say the engineers didn't know what they're doing, I said the decision makers. i.e. the old bloke spending 8 hours a day kipping in his office, being defrosted to rubber stamp stuff & collect a fat dividend in the next board meeting.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
generaly we don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, but honestly, we've streched things about as far as we can push them, I don't think we'd be able to do anyhting unless we get the UN or at least NATO _asking_ us to help, we can't bring up the subject, becase it's exactly the argument we used for Iraq, and that sort of crashed on us.
I think the UN is still peeved at GWB calling them "at risk of becoming irrelevent"
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
I think the UN is still peeved at GWB calling them "at risk of becoming irrelevent"
Until they get their **** togerther and start standing up to the US (in particular, given recent history), the UN will be increasingly irrelevant.
-
this isnt "just another country" getting nukes.. this isnt a very friendly country.. and allot of terrorist groups come from Iran or are supported by them, they have allot of leaders with to say the least fanatical opinions.. and again this rolles back into the whole "islam" thing.
i think they shouldnt get nukes, regardless of who they are though.
-
"the whole 'islam' thing"?
-
All Islam is evil, did you not know that?
-
And ignorance is the worst sin...
-
Originally posted by ffRule
this isnt "just another country" getting nukes.. this isnt a very friendly country.. and allot of terrorist groups come from Iran or are supported by them, they have allot of leaders with to say the least fanatical opinions.. and again this rolles back into the whole "islam" thing.
i think they shouldnt get nukes, regardless of who they are though.
bah.. your ignorance is great. :doubt:
you should read world history, particularly about areas of the planet where islam is the primary religon, i think, given your above statement, that you'll be shocked..
[offtopic-rant]
that said..
a terrorist, is a terrorist, no matter the religion, or their beliefs, the fact that this particular breed of terrorists are using their religion to "justify" their actions, and to gather the fervor of others, and people who are really just "sheep" and not thinking for themselves. :blah:
now, put all this religion crap aside for a moment, and think about this one.. these terrorists, are human, just like the other 6 billion or so that exist on this great big clod of dirt we call 'earth' they are no more capable of good or evil than you or i..
all the most powerful tyrants on earth are human.
all the most gifted and generous people on earth are human also.
just bear in mind that we're all fleshy little meatsacks, and religion is just a faith in a particular diety(s) be it any.. and also, (this is my own belief) i believe in a higher power, (god, or whatever) but not in the churches run by the people, 'cause people are fallible, i'm not perfect, i know that much.. just that i have no faith in people.. anywho, i've said my peace, now, i hope i didn't piss anybody off with my words here, if so, PM me ;)
[/offtopic-rant]
alright, back on topic, well yeah, another cold war.. so what?.. they're gonna be shaking nuclear-armed fists at each other just like the US and the Soviets did way back when.. hopefully the UN will grow some spine and nip this nuclear proliferation in the bud before it all gets outta hand.
or until the US develops something that makes nukes horribly, horribly obsolete :p :ha:
-
I'm just wondering what it takes for news of my nuclear arsenal to get out, I've been pimping it for months. Damn Jewish media.
-
Originally posted by 01010
I'm just wondering what it takes for news of my nuclear arsenal to get out, I've been pimping it for months. Damn Jewish media.
You should be so lucky.
I nuked Milton Keynes last week, and no-one even noticed. In fact, I got an award for "services to civic rejuvenation".
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Bobbau, stay assured that in case of real need USAF will dispatch a few B1 or B2 and end the problem the israely way...
hehe, afraid Iran has the US by the balls on this one, it has over 100,000 US troops next door to it up to their necks in ****, Us farts at them and there'll be a revolutionary guard and Hiz'bollah backed uprising in the south that'll make Tet look like the fourth of July. Couple that with the fact that around a quarter of the US's daily oil supply passes through the persian gulf, in naval terms a duckpond, within range of Iranian Silkworm, Exocet and Moskit missiles. I believe the JFK is also in the gulf at the minute, Iran reportedly has 8 sunburns, if I was on that ship I'd be praying like **** Dubya keeps it in his pants this time.
-
MOABs are a tastey alternative to those high fat Nukes. They aren't as filling, but they can get the job done with no fallout.
-
Originally posted by Gank
hehe, afraid Iran has the US by the balls on this one, it has over 100,000 US troops next door to it up to their necks in ****, Us farts at them and there'll be a revolutionary guard and Hiz'bollah backed uprising in the south that'll make Tet look like the fourth of July. Couple that with the fact that around a quarter of the US's daily oil supply passes through the persian gulf, in naval terms a duckpond, within range of Iranian Silkworm, Exocet and Moskit missiles. I believe the JFK is also in the gulf at the minute, Iran reportedly has 8 sunburns, if I was on that ship I'd be praying like **** Dubya keeps it in his pants this time.
Could be covert options, of course. A nice 'accident' with plausible deniability is always the best option.
The thing that scares me, is that US presidents are restricted to 2 terms. If Bush is re-elected, then he doesn't really have much (politically) to lose.
-
ats rights. But I simply don't think he has the resouces to pull of another war. I hope not anyways,
on a related note, I don't see the difference between getting NEW nukes, like Iran is allegedly planning to do, and just keeping your old ones. What matters is who has how many, not really if they are recent aquisitions or decades old.
which means that if we were to agree upon a "no nukes" policy, that would mean all the current nuclear players disarming would be top priority.
but ofcourse, thanks to the wonder of double standards, we've got what we've got.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ats rights. But I simply don't think he has the resouces to pull of another war. I hope not anyways,
on a related note, I don't see the difference between getting NEW nukes, like Iran is allegedly planning to do, and just keeping your old ones. What matters is who has how many, not really if they are recent aquisitions or decades old.
which means that if we were to agree upon a "no nukes" policy, that would mean all the current nuclear players disarming would be top priority.
but ofcourse, thanks to the wonder of double standards, we've got what we've got.
It's better to try & stop people getting new nukes than do nothing atall, you have to admit.
-
yeah, you'll get no arguement from me.
But to be quite honest, I think the problem is that the people of nuclear armed countries feel it is their right, and no one else's to posses nukes. In theory, 6 of the 7 nuclear powers are democracies, though with Pakistan and Russia sort of iffy, thats still 4 of 7. If the people simply demanded nuclear disrmament, as straunchly as they demanded any number of things throughout the years, the government would have to comply.
and if this happened, I would be the first to demand that action be taken against those countries that fail to disarm. Oh if only a few beaurocrats weren't so short-sighted 50 years ago, we wouldn't be in this mess.
-
Originally posted by magatsu1
I think the UN is still peeved at GWB calling them "at risk of becoming irrelevent"
I think it is too bad, in a way, the GWB didn't say that congress was irrelevent.
-
actions speak louder than words. there is a reason that no one man can declare war, Congress has to do it. But they figured out that little detail 50 years ago, and how to bypass it. So, yes, when it comes to war, Congress is irrelevant, and since any Prez can count on his own party members to strike down a no confidence vote, he essentially has carte blanche.
-
Maybe for Congress but the UN is 'sposed to be different.
I don't know eh, where are all those UN troops when you need 'em ?
-
Originally posted by vyper
MOABs are a tastey alternative to those high fat Nukes. They aren't as filling, but they can get the job done with no fallout.
They also can only be dropped by a C-130, which aint exactly the sort of plane you want to fly over hostile territory.
Originally posted by aldo_14
Could be covert options, of course. A nice 'accident' with plausible deniability is always the best option.
Ya, US special forces done well the last time they went into Iran. And even if they manage not to crash into each other, the Iranians are going to know exactly who it was.
-
no, see, thats why you have Israelis in Northern Iraq, training Kurds to go romping around in Iran. Plausible deniability baby.
-
Let's examine this bit by bit here:
Iran is a country ruled by the bronze fist of a Islamic Theocracy.
The Leaders of said theocracy believe that non-muslims are less than people and worthy only of death.(NOTE: I didn't say all muslims believe this way, as was said recently, "Not all muslims are Terrorists, but so far all Terrorists have been muslim." - I forget who said this but he was a muslim)
If said leaders get "The Bomb" they have no moral compunction against anhilating their by any means neccesary.
Said leaders feel that they're enemies include the USA and most other western powers.
Said leaders could very easily release "The Bomb" "under the table", as it were, to individuals or organizations who could not easily be linked back to said leaders(how's that for plausible deniability?)
However, just because they are on the verge of constructing an atomic bomb doesn't mean that they will be able to mass produce them at a rate that will make them a serious threat. I do feel however that people as provenly unstable as the mullahs should not be allowed to possess such awe inspiring amounts of firepower.
-
yeah, I'm just waiting for someone here to say something like 'there are no conections between ran and Al Qeada'.
-
You make the mistake of believing that all your enemies are suicidal. I bet you thought (still think) that the Soviet leadership was all a bunch of fanatics and madmen. Maybe so, but they had the good sense to know that starting a nuclear war is not it anyone's best interests.
And anyway, its not as simple as "Iranians hate our freedom and want to destroy the western world". Aside from the embassy thing, I can think of no example when Iran has attacked the US. And they would surely not do so if they got The Bomb, because as someone mentioned, that would pertty much be the end for them. America however, possesses several thousand nukes, and its plans to attack Iran at the first possible opportunity are not exactly a secret.
also, please don't make such stupid, simplistic statements like "all terrorists are Muslim". What about Timothy McVeigh, or Irish terrorists, or several dozen US backed terrorists organizations, both past and present, or in fact, the US itself.
-
Um, RE: 'Iranian instability' - how many wars have Iran started in the last few decades? (NB: Iraq invaded them first in the Persian Gulf War, unless I'm mistaken)
If Iran get the bomb, it's not the end of the world. Yes, it's a bad thing anyone having a nuke is. But it's not worthy of, for example, a US invasion that would further destabilise global security.
NB: All terrorists are political, is about the only true statement you could make.
EDIT; yes, I just lapsed into Yoda speak. I don't know why.
-
RE: Anyone having the nuke:
Hmm, a global scale MAD, where you'd think twice before invading someone...
On the other side it would lead a tech race to counter the technology... ABM redux
-
I'd rather have a thousand normal wars than one nuclear one, though.
Because after one nuclear war, there's no-one left to fight another.
-
what about the zombies and the morlocks?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
what about the zombies and the morlocks?
Zombies & Morlocks get on well fine, maaaaaaaaaannnnnnn...........