Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on April 09, 2006, 08:15:13 am
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html
Albeit, check the headline at the bottom of the page.
-
They may be crazy, malevolent and downright rotten; but those in the US Administration are not going to order the first use of Nuclear Weapons offensively in more than half a century. That would mean having to reset that big-ass timer outside the UN that reads '[61] Years without a Nuclear War', and I doubt anyone wants that job... :rolleyes:
-
They may be crazy, malevolent and downright rotten; but those in the US Administration are not going to order the first use of Nuclear Weapons offensively in more than half a century. That would mean having to reset that big-ass timer outside the UN that reads '[61] Years without a Nuclear War', and I doubt anyone wants that job... :rolleyes:
I have a hasty feeling the current administration doesn't really class these bombs to be nuc-u-lur weapons, though. After all, the development of a nuclear bunker-buster (or any new type of nuclear weapon) is banned under the NTP.
-
You mean they got around the Non-proliferation Treaty by argueing semantics?!
-
So the hard-liner leader of Iran is 'The New Hitler' in a country which is working o building up a store of weapons of mass destruction to threaten the west.....
Haven't I heard this before?
-
So the hard-liner leader of Iraqn is 'The New Hitler' in a country which is working o building up a store of weapons of mass destruction to threaten the west.....
:nervous:
-
You mean they got around the Non-proliferation Treaty by argueing semantics?!
Got around or just plain ignored.
-
Thats a huge load of cattle poo. Like Bush would bomb the oil fields to glass. When the oil fields happen to be the only reason he would want a war with Iran (should it still exist after said bombings). Thought you never know what radioactive oil might do to american economy. ;)
US and European intelligence agencies are certain that Teheran is trying to develop atomic weapons. In contrast to the run-up to the Iraq invasion, there are no disagreements within Western intelligence about Iran's plans.
Like some newsagency would have a clue what national intelligence agencies are doing. The article doesn't even say where this particular piece of information is from.
Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".
I would be very scared of this, if I wouldn't be laughing my ass off. :rolleyes:
-
I don't see why Bush is so concerned. He could just sit back, gain some points in the oh-so-important "world opinion" by pursuing diplomatic means of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program, and let us deal with Ahmedinejad. We would/will, after all - and probably more effectively than America could.
-
Thats a huge load of cattle poo. Like Bush would bomb the oil fields to glass. When the oil fields happen to be the only reason he would want a war with Iran (should it still exist after said bombings). Thought you never know what radioactive oil might do to american economy. ;)
It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point - they're planning on using nuclear bunker busters. That is, weapons that penetrate below the hardenened shell of a bunker and then detonate a (in this case low-yield nuclear) warhead. The US believes that the bunker-aspect of it means fallout would be contained by the bunker structure, although AFAIK this has never been proven.
Insofar as intelligence agencies.... newspapers have sources. People who give them information for various reasons, be it personal fear/disgust ala Deep Throat or the leaking of information that helps the government. The sources may be actual working agents, 3rd party consultants, or former intelligence people with 'old boy' connections to the current setup.
-
It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point...
I figured I didn't have to quote the "key point" because everyone can read it themselves. I quoted things that were just dumb. And made me not to belive the article. And nuke is a nuke no matter what it is designed to bust.
-
I figured I didn't have to quote the "key point" because everyone can read it themselves. I quoted things that were just dumb. And made me not to belive the article. And nuke is a nuke no matter what it is designed to bust.
[q]Like Bush would bomb the oil fields to glass. [/q]
Not that i'm arguing this is a nuke, but they're not actually being aimed at or anywhere near an oilfield, not would they turn it to 'glass' because that'd require a surface detonation to melt the surface sand (the consequences here would be more around fallout), so it's highly erroneous to judge the likelihood of such an attack based upon the conseqeunces of an ICBM style strike when the attack is planned around what is best termed a 'non-conventional' nuclear weapon, if no less of a nuclear weapon.
-
From what I hear, Ahmadenijad isn't too popular in Iran, and might get booted out come next elections. That said, the support among the population for nuclear development is pretty much unanimous, which means it's going to go ahead regardless of who's in power.
And whatever I may think of the Bush administration, I don't think they're stupid enough to attack Iran, and especially not stupid enough to do it with nukes.
-
Honestly...all they should have done in Iraq and in Iran is a small team...one sniper...and a single bullet. Or just have a duel with swords. Or send Chenney on a goodwill mission and go hunting for birds.
-
OT: Why are the adverts in this thread titled "Approaching Women Mastery"? :wtf:
-
From what I hear, Ahmadenijad isn't too popular in Iran, and might get booted out come next elections. That said, the support among the population for nuclear development is pretty much unanimous, which means it's going to go ahead regardless of who's in power.
And whatever I may think of the Bush administration, I don't think they're stupid enough to attack Iran, and especially not stupid enough to do it with nukes.
Well, he is a raging nutbag. Although it's contentious whether he was voted in or not in the first place.
-
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC30Ak01.html
WASHINGTON - The George W Bush administration failed to enter into negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program in May 2003 because neo-conservatives who advocated destabilization and regime change were able to block any serious diplomatic engagement with Tehran, according to former administration officials.
Ooops. Well, you reap what you sow. From what I understand, Iran hs been looking for increased diplomatic and economic engagement for a while now, as well as security guarantees in exchnage for nuclear talks, but you-know-who wasn't interested. Kind of hard to bargain in good faith with a nation who is openly calling for the overthrow of your government and refuses to commit to not attacking you. Oh, and also has troops sitting on two of your borders.
As for Ahmedinejad not being elected...look, I'm not going to expect every country on Earth to be Switzerland. They have regular elections and universal sufferage; a certain amount of institutional corruption is to be expected. The same thing applies to most of the world. In America, instead of the mullahs having some wink-wink nudge-nudge power over elections, you have the businessmen. From what I understand, Ahmedinejad was elected mostly on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform, and the ruling elites are getting a bit worried about him running his mouth.
-
And whatever I may think of the Bush administration, I don't think they're stupid enough to attack Iran, and especially not stupid enough to do it with nukes.
They are more than stupid enough to do just that. The Bush Administration already invaded two countries that he shouldn't have in his first term when he had to worry about re-election. What does it matter to him if he pushes the big red button marked "Iran" two weeks before the end of his term? Either world opinion falls on his side, he eliminates a major threat and is remembered as a hero, or, more likely, he retires for the rest of his life on the millions of dollars his family already has confident he's going to heaven anyway.
He's a second term president with a supremem conviction that he's doing God's own work. It's a dangerous and ultimately unpredictable combination.
-
As for Ahmedinejad not being elected...look, I'm not going to expect every country on Earth to be Switzerland. They have regular elections and universal sufferage; a certain amount of institutional corruption is to be expected. The same thing applies to most of the world. In America, instead of the mullahs having some wink-wink nudge-nudge power over elections, you have the businessmen. From what I understand, Ahmedinejad was elected mostly on an anti-corruption and anti-poverty platform, and the ruling elites are getting a bit worried about him running his mouth.
Well, if you have a country where the council of clergy picks the candidates, it's very easy to fix elections. My remembrance was that Ahmadinejads' election came as a big shock to most media observers, and that the expectation was for a more reformist (Even within the limited context available to them) candidate to be picked and that Ahmadinejad was very much an unknown and unexpected selection.
-
He's a second term president with a supremem conviction that he's doing God's own work. It's a dangerous and ultimately unpredictable combination.
Kinda reminds me of the movie The Dead Zone. Where Martin Sheen is the crazy presidental candidate and acts like Bush. But then Christopher Walken saves the world by shooting him. Pretty good movie.
EDIT: Wait wait wait! Walken didn't shoot him! Sheen shot himself.
-
A small part of me wants this to happen, and wants the network of Bush's media people to try to frame this in a good light.
...and then he destroys himself and his own party for the 60% or so of Americans who have enough of a brain to realise "holy **** this shrub did a pre-emptive nuclear strike..."
-
They may be crazy, malevolent and downright rotten; but those in the US Administration are not going to order the first use of Nuclear Weapons offensively in more than half a century. That would mean having to reset that big-ass timer outside the UN that reads '[61] Years without a Nuclear War', and I doubt anyone wants that job... :rolleyes:
can i do it?
-
It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point - they're planning on using nuclear bunker busters. That is, weapons that penetrate below the hardenened shell of a bunker and then detonate a (in this case low-yield nuclear) warhead. The US believes that the bunker-aspect of it means fallout would be contained by the bunker structure, although AFAIK this has never been proven.
Because testing it would be a violation of various treaties, which the Bush adminstration won't do...which probably means they won't violate the first-use treaty either.
Also there's the problem of whether or not Bush considers these things nukes, the military still will. And at least some of the safeguards meant to keep some lunatic from launching a nuke at a random country work both ways.
-
I don't see why Bush is so concerned. He could just sit back, gain some points in the oh-so-important "world opinion" by pursuing diplomatic means of halting Iran's nuclear weapons program, and let us deal with Ahmedinejad. We would/will, after all - and probably more effectively than America could.
not surprising, but then bush won't get a good political spin out of it! :p
either way, i would be concerned if bush started throwing nukes about like confetti, didn't einstein say something about not knowing how WWIII will be fought, but rather how WWIV will be fought?
surely the US has some viable non-nuclear options if they decided to go "the whole hog" on this.. but of course, i'm forgetting, bush has his forces divided between afghanistan, and iraq, that's two fronts right there, and now shaking a trifoil-emblazoned fist at iran?.. that would make a third front... didn't somebody say that they'd haveta be in a kingdom of idiots to fight a war on several fronts?
i do say, however, that israel would be more than equipped to handle such a thing without clouds of radioactive dust lingering afterwards, i remember hearing how saddam was more afraid of the Israeli army, than the US. (i could be wrong), so they're well and truely capable of handling themselves in a pinch (guess you should know, sandy).
-
Of course all of the talk show radio hosts are going to be saying: "No, this is not a nuclear war. Tactical nuclear bombs are a completely and totally viable option..."
They won't be saying that when France decides to reclaim the Lousiana purchase and uses neutron bombs :p
-
Of course all of the talk show radio hosts are going to be saying: "No, this is not a nuclear war. Tactical nuclear bombs are a completely and totally viable option..."
They won't be saying that when France decides to reclaim the Lousiana purchase and uses neutron bombs :p
well, technically they're right, a nuclear war would convey that we're firing nukes at each other, right now it'd be a conventional war with a nuclear backhand, kinda like WW2 :blah:
-
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings among the joint chiefs of staff, and some officers have talked about resigning, Hersh has been told. The military chiefs sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran, without success, a former senior intelligence officer said.
-WTF?! The Military is saying no to nukes, while the civilian leadership is saying yes?! My farts still smell like **** and my dog still hates my cat... so no i didn't wake up "you're ****ing crazy" land...
Despite America's public commitment to diplomacy, there is a growing belief in Washington that the only solution to the crisis is regime change. A senior Pentagon consultant said that Mr Bush believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy".
-If any of this is true... wow... just... All I have to say is President Bush is completely god damn insane...
-
War crimes to be in the future...?
-
It's strange you quoted bits of the article but missed that key point - they're planning on using nuclear bunker busters. That is, weapons that penetrate below the hardenened shell of a bunker and then detonate a (in this case low-yield nuclear) warhead. The US believes that the bunker-aspect of it means fallout would be contained by the bunker structure, although AFAIK this has never been proven.
Because testing it would be a violation of various treaties, which the Bush adminstration won't do...which probably means they won't violate the first-use treaty either.
Also there's the problem of whether or not Bush considers these things nukes, the military still will. And at least some of the safeguards meant to keep some lunatic from launching a nuke at a random country work both ways.
There's already a US 'first strike' doctrine for the potential use of nuclear weapons. IIRC one of the cases is if an enemy nation is preparing WMD that threaten the US or allies.
-
Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks :)
-
You know, if the Bush administration ever were to approach Congress and say, "Hey, let us go to war with Iran," and Congress were to say, "You know, that sounds like a good idea," I think I would rather they were more direct about it, and just **** on my face.
-
I agree. The word "nuclear" is a buzz word in the media right now. But holding Iran and the US to the same nuclear standard is crazy. First of all, Tehran is nuts. They will lob the first nuke they get at Isreal because they have this gradiose vision of Universal Islam. Not to mention that its the west who is obsessed with nuclear non-proliferation. Ahh the hell with it... lets just get it over with and blow the world up, itll save alot of stress from constant worry about the pending Apocalypse. If we dont die from nukes, global warming is going to get us, and if that doesnt, starvation and famine and AIDS.
-
I agree. The word "nuclear" is a buzz word in the media right now. But holding Iran and the US to the same nuclear standard is crazy. First of all, Tehran is nuts. They will lob the first nuke they get at Isreal because they have this gradiose vision of Universal Islam. Not to mention that its the west who is obsessed with nuclear non-proliferation. Ahh the hell with it... lets just get it over with and blow the world up, itll save alot of stress from constant worry about the pending Apocalypse. If we dont die from nukes, global warming is going to get us, and if that doesnt, starvation and famine and AIDS.
Yep exactly :yes:
Between fear-mongering journalism and real-world dangers, it's a wondrous place, this Earth of ours :p
-
Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks :)
Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.
Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.
-
Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.
Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.
I've seen the issue about US plans to use nukes crop up on multiple forums, and for some damn reason they all seem to degenerate into 'OMG Iran is going to nuke the US!!! Let's glass 'em first!!'.The idea that they [the US] might use nukes is only half the issue here, the fact of the matter is, Isreal is the one under threat here, and they are more than well equipped to handle anything Iran can throw at them. The US needs to learn to stay the f*** out of problems that neither threaten or concern it.
-
Is it just me, but isn't it the responsiblity of a government, any government, to consider ALL the options available when dealing with a particularly serious threat to national security? Yeah sure, the US Administration at the moment is considerably hawkish, but preemtive first strikes with nuclear buster bombs against another soverign nation, EVEN Iran, is a long long way off I think. Just a bit of sensationalistic journalism for the most part, methinks :)
Even if it had a nuclear bomb, do you seriously believe that they have the capability to launch it at America? As I understand it their missiles are short range at best.
Even if they did have ICBMs, they know full well that the US has more than enough nukes to flatten them.
Yep, and right there is the reason why I think it will stay as a plan, and nothing more :)
Israel might possibly get copped, but honestly I don't even think this would happen right away, if and when Iran succeeds with the bomb. Building a nuke's one thing, making it intercontinental's another, definitely, and I think the few countries that have succeeded with this technology have put a good deal of money into it, probably on the order of billiions of dollars...
I just don't quite think it's fair to get into a ho-ha over a strategic plan, is all. But if the Iranians do make their nuke, which seems to be the popular course of action in their country, then an ally of the US within their range like Israel gets hit for some reason... well, America's going to want to do SOMETHING, that's for sure.
-
I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.
As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.
-
I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.
Where did you hear that?
-
I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.
As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.
Link?
-
I made a joke about the Joint Chiefs staging a coup to a friend...apparently it's not so much of a joke anymore. They've threatened to resign en masse unless Bush takes the first-use nuclear option off the table.
As political disaster goes, that's...well, it's really in class of its own. I don't think that kind of threat has ever been made by one member, let alone all of them. It's the functional equivalent of a unianimous vote of no confidence from the armed forces.
Is there any information you could provide on this? I've never heard this development, is all.
It would be one of the hardest things in the world to accomplish, but a dark side of me wonders whether or not staging a military coup would be possible in the US today, and just how violent/costly an actiion like that would be...? It would probably be met with mostly-popular public support atm, if the aim was something like 'get rid of Bush Admin, put in a Democratic one' :p
-
Alas, I can't link, because the information comes from inside; namely my father, who is a civilian working for the Navy. (GS-15, protocol equivalent of a captain; he's one of the deputy directors for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Navy R&D essentially.)
-
Alas, I can't link, because the information comes from inside; namely my father, who is a civilian working for the Navy. (GS-15, protocol equivalent of a captain; he's one of the deputy directors for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Navy R&D essentially.)
Hmm, shame, but definitely adds fuel to the fire if accurate. Makes a lot of sense though for a honorable militaryman to be so opposed to preemptive nuclear strikes, I get that, even against a country like Iran.
-
Wouldn't take much to get that out of whack though. "nuclear strikes on Iran's secret facilities" is only a slight variation off of "strikes on Iran's secret nuclear facilities." The latter far more likely than the former, really, but isn't as sensationalist.
-
Alas, I can't link, because the information comes from inside; namely my father, who is a civilian working for the Navy. (GS-15, protocol equivalent of a captain; he's one of the deputy directors for Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. Navy R&D essentially.)
We'll assume it's accurate then. I can certainly see why the administration doesn't want that info getting out.
It also makes me wonder why the military would spend so much money on toys like this if it won't use them?
-
It also makes me wonder why the military would spend so much money on toys like this if it won't use them?
The same reason they design lasers, orbital weapons platforms and all those other futuristic weapons...
...because it's cool!
-
See, this is how we know the world is still male-dominated. It's all about having the toys.
-
See, this is how we know the world is still male-dominated. It's all about having the toys.
Whereas if it were female-dominated, it'd be all about playing with the toys? :p
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4908820.stm
Irony:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the UN Security Council would have to look at options to compel Iran to "obey the international system".
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4908820.stm
Irony:
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the UN Security Council would have to look at options to compel Iran to "obey the international system".
All I've got to add on to that at the moment... :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/06/middle_east_iranians0_nuclear_views/html/7.stm
-
<< looks forward to seeing nuclear blasts on cnn :D
-
<< looks forward to seeing nuclear blasts on cnn :D
I can't truely believe you really think that. >..>
-
It also makes me wonder why the military would spend so much money on toys like this if it won't use them?
See, that misses the point from where the military's sitting. They don't exist to be used; they exist against the day when their use is necessary. This is particularly true of nuclear weapons. The mission is not to fight, but to be ready to fight.
-
I'm sure Europe will be overjoyed when Iran develops nuclear weapons. They'd get hit a lot sooner than we would.
The only bad thing about letting Iran get nuclear weapons is Israel's right there.
Let's see another Danish cartoon incident when Iran has the bomb. :blah:
-
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=128424®ion=6
Well, the IAEA's been told where to go by the Iranians supposedly, big surprise I know... :)
-
Well if WW3 breaks out I'm definitely within nuclear blast range of Leeds, the 3rd most populated city in the UK :nervous: And if they hit Manchester or Sheffield, fallout would probably get me.
So if it happens and I suddenly drop off the radar, well.
I'm actually quite scared now. They've got hella better reasons for military action here than they did with Iraq.
The first bomb launched, well that could just spiral out of all proportions with alliances, non-alliances and in general leaders who would try and use the situation for their own gain.
-
I can't find the article now, but the Evening Times ran an issue a year or so ago in which they released the old cold war emergency plans for an atomic bomb being dropped on Glasgow. It made sense due to the sheer level of industry in the city. The predicted casualty rates weren't as high as I would have imagined, but its an interesting thought nonetheless.
-
<< looks forward to seeing nuclear blasts on cnn :D
I can't truely believe you really think that. >..>
i think you need to understand a few things about me before you make that assumption
1. i think mad max movies are really cool
2. insanity is why im not in the marines right now
3. i hate people
4. my name is nuke
:D
-
I can't find the article now, but the Evening Times ran an issue a year or so ago in which they released the old cold war emergency plans for an atomic bomb being dropped on Glasgow. It made sense due to the sheer level of industry in the city. The predicted casualty rates weren't as high as I would have imagined.
It's the neds that are pushing down the casualty figures. We've long know that cockroaches and other vermin could survive a nuclear strike. :p
-
Actually, since Iran launching a nuke at a heavily populated area (say, bigger casualty figures 'achieved' than hiroshima) would mean pretty much the end of the world for human civilization, I don't think it's unreasonable for Iran to launch an intercontinental nuke. Think, for example, if all the social welfare programs that they offer are no longer relevant (bad example actually, they probably don't have much in the way of such programs in Iran). Then they could pour all that funding into getting a nuke. I mean, what the hay, they could even just steal one using an agent inside a country that does have one.
Anyway, it may be useful to note that it would be pretty easy, in comparison, for Iran to threaten Israel with a short-range one. It's in their freakin' constitution. That may actually be better for the world - maybe Israel would be able to defuse the situation more or less by itself without anyone getting nuked.
Damn. And I thought I was going to live long enough to get my PhD.
-
Well if WW3 breaks out I'm definitely within nuclear blast range of Leeds, the 3rd most populated city in the UK :nervous: And if they hit Manchester or Sheffield, fallout would probably get me.
So if it happens and I suddenly drop off the radar, well.
I'm actually quite scared now. They've got hella better reasons for military action here than they did with Iraq.
The first bomb launched, well that could just spiral out of all proportions with alliances, non-alliances and in general leaders who would try and use the situation for their own gain.
Can anyone say M.A.D.?
-
Actually, since Iran launching a nuke at a heavily populated area (say, bigger casualty figures 'achieved' than hiroshima) would mean pretty much the end of the world for human civilization, I don't think it's unreasonable for Iran to launch an intercontinental nuke. Think, for example, if all the social welfare programs that they offer are no longer relevant (bad example actually, they probably don't have much in the way of such programs in Iran). Then they could pour all that funding into getting a nuke. I mean, what the hay, they could even just steal one using an agent inside a country that does have one.
Anyway, it may be useful to note that it would be pretty easy, in comparison, for Iran to threaten Israel with a short-range one. It's in their freakin' constitution. That may actually be better for the world - maybe Israel would be able to defuse the situation more or less by itself without anyone getting nuked.
No. No. No. Iran will not get ICBM capability. Hell, it'll be at least 3 years before they even get nukes, let alone develop a platform for launching at another continent. But, okay, let's say that they do somehow get an Nuclear-tipped ICBM through the ludicrous economic policies you described or simply 'stealing one' a la Dr. Evil; why the f*** would they nuke anyone?! Honestly, the only people they would want to nuke would be Isreal, and if that were ever a real posibility, Isreal would turn Iran into a f***ing crater at the drop of a hat. If, for some reason, they suddenly get a brainstorm to throw a nuke at another nation at random, they'll live just long enough to see about 200 nukes coming at them from all directions. If the thought of nuking someone even crosses their minds, they can kiss their little portion of the planet goodbye, so why the f*** would they risk it?
Even if Iran gets the bomb, it will only be short range, they have absolutely no possible way of acquiring intercontinental weapons short of buying one off Russia or something [which is still unbelievably far-fetched], which would lead to pre-emptive strikes the second any major western intelligence organisation gets wind. I am so sick and tired of everyone blowing this crap utterly out of proportion saying 'zomg, Iran has teh nukes, they're gonna nuke everyone!! Oh noes!!', when in reality they most likely only want nuclear weapons so they have a trump card should the US or another nation get wiley and try to invade [a la North Korea].
Unless you live in or around the Middle East, there is absolutely no chance of a Nuke getting dropped on you, so the only person allowed to be worried is probably Sarno.
-
Mefustae, I am not, contrary to what my post may have indicated, worried about Iran nuking someone, although I am..uh, not pleased?...by the more real possibility that Iran develops nuclear weps purely for the threat, ala Cold War style, or the doomsday machine from Dr. Strangelove (which this whole thing reminds me of). At most, I am remotely worried by Israel getting nuked.
-
Mefustae, I am not, contrary to what my post may have indicated, worried about Iran nuking someone
Damn. And I thought I was going to live long enough to get my PhD.
-
It's called hyperbole. The purpose of the sentence was to convey frustration/displeasment with the deterioration of international relations, especially with regards to military force, not to indicate I was sad because I was convinced I would die soon.
-
Current Iranian missle technology lets them hit targets within parts of Turkey, I believe.
What if ten years down the road they can hit inside Europe? Have another cartoon incident then, why don't you.
What is more worrisome then all discussed scenarios, however, is if Iran assembles a dirty bomb and passes it along to one of their terrorist friends. If Tel Aviv is hit by one of them, would we strike Iran? Could we know for sure they did it?
I imagine in that scenario, there would be widespread calls for Israel to not strike back. MAD defeated.
On the whole of it, in principle, if Iran can make their own nuclear weapons, who are we to stop them? I think we can certainly try to stop sharing nuclear technology, but self-developed, I'm not so sure.
I'm opposed to Iranian nukes on the more practical grounds that the nation has an unstable government, and them acquiring nukes will only complicate things.
Suppose a democratic uprising in Iran looks like it will win. What if the Ayatollahs launch a nuclear attack on Israel just before they can be stopped by the rebels? Fun, eh?
-
"in the history of mankind there has been but one device of its creation that is capable of restoring the natural equalibrium of the human race, nuclear ****ing warheads"
-nuke
we need the ocasional use of nuclear warheds to diminish the earth's population, its that simple. now let em burn!
-
we need the ocasional use of nuclear warheds to diminish the earth's population, its that simple. now let em burn!
Would you quit saying that, it's not gonna happen!
-
we need the ocasional use of nuclear warheds to diminish the earth's population, its that simple. now let em burn!
Would you quit saying that, it's not gonna happen!
and that is unfortunate :D
but it just takes one nutjob with a bomb. if it doesnt hsppen with iran (and i dont think it will), then it will happen somwhere else some other time. it will happen i tell you, it must!
-
and that is unfortunate :D
but it just takes one nutjob with a bomb. if it doesnt hsppen with iran (and i dont think it will), then it will happen somwhere else some other time. it will happen i tell you, it must!
Take the initiative, then! If you want my advice, go for the tried & true method of hi-jacking a truck carrying a Nuclear Warhead and holding the world ransom.
-
For 1 Million dollars!
MUWHAHAHAHAHAHA!
-
But, a hurricane puts out the power of a few thousand atom bombs in it's lifetime, so just borrow the weather machine from the mafia, gives you the effects of the atom bomb without the raditation. :p
-
But, a hurricane puts out the power of a few thousand atom bombs in it's lifetime, so just borrow the weather machine from the mafia, gives you the effects of the atom bomb without the raditation. :p
Nonono, my current plan for world domination:
1- Through various means, create an economic crisis in Japan, thereby forcing them to call back their international loans to prevent economic crisis. This would include calling in the multi-trillion dollar loan to the US.
2- Shortly thereafter, detonate a small-yeild nuclear weapon [acquired from old communists in Russia] right on the San Andreas fault, causing it to shift and create an earthquake with power roughly equivalent to that of every nuclear weapon on the planet detonating at once over 800 times.
3- Due to moronic city planning, most buildings currently on the fault-lines in California are Civic buildings, such as Police & Fire Stations, Hospitals, etc. As such, these would be the first to be destroyed.
4- In effect, a large portion of the Western US Seaboard is now in a state not unlike New Orleans shortly after Katrina. The following crisis will destabalise and eventually destroy the already damaged US economy, thereby creating a domino-effect that will cause another, truly Global Great Depression.
5- Then, somehow... i'm still working on this part... unite this ravaged world under the promise of stablity and prosperity, and thus you shall reign supreme. *Evil laughter*
-
nononono, you get it all wrong, i dont want to dominate the earth, i want it to burn. baked earth mother ****er!!!
-
Well, that's the thing, when you've got total domination, you pick a number of individuals to assist in repopulating the human race and unleash an engineered virus out to destroy Humanity while doing comparitively little damage to the rest of the environment. Quick, clean, and environmentally friendly. A baked Earth is all well and good, but I would think that taking part in repopulating the Human Race would be a lot more... fun... :D
-
nononono, you get it all wrong, i dont want to dominate the earth, i want it to burn. baked earth mother ****er!!!
That's scorched Earth, Baked Earth is 30 minutes on Gas Mark 7, Scorched is when you just crank it up to full and walk away ;) Of course, you could just drop a Nuke on one Pole and have Baked Alaska ;)
-
...Of course, you could just drop a Nuke on one Pole and have Baked Alaska ;)
Now I have this mental image of a Special Ops airlift parachuting HLP forum members onto a glacier.
Or this Polish person I know.
-
I think bush is just bored and want some action to his life *let's use Nuclear weapons against some country because it's fun* :p
but there must be better options than nuclear weapon usage
-
yes, what of the excess of vx nerve agent the usa has lying around, it is said that its enought to kill every human on the planet 10 times over. lets use that instead :D
-
Nononono, we wait until the population is ten times larger than now, so that there's no waste. ;7
-
We can't do it all at once tho...no panic then.
-
"Your levity is good. It relieves the tension, and the fear of death." -T-850 model 101
Anyway... There's a quite melancholic (but not overly IMO, considering the subject) song made by a band called Sir Elwoodin Hiljaiset Värit. It's Finnish, so I had to come up with an emergency translation, 'cause I did want to post it here but it wouldn't have had quite the impact if it was just Finnish. The song is called Kymmenen tikkua laudalla, roughly "Ten sticks on the board". I don't know if any of you are familiar with this game, it's basically a variation of hide-and-seek where ten sticks are bounced onto air and the seeker has to gather them onto the board and during this time, the other players get out of sight... it's a bit more complex than that of course (children's games always tend to be), but that'll suffice for now.
So, here goes. Original lyrics: J. Lehti (Finnish lyrics can be found in multiple places through www, for example here (http://www.letssingit.com/?/sir-elwoodin-hiljaiset-varit-viimeisella-rannalla-v1dl6jw.html)
Ten Sticks on the Board
Father standing on the beach with a gun in his hand waiting for the tempest
Mother holds little sister on arms, when the sky at evenings turns purple in a way strangest
About my brother I last time heard when a letter came here from a weird land
Told he was all right, but that the situation there, too, looked unbelievably bad
:;This ten sticks on the board and gone
We're hiding at the last of the beaches alone
And nobody's looking for us more, this is empty and pointless chore
And the wind just whispers: "Everyone out of hiding"
Uncle has somehow lost something, he's sitting in the annex laughing, crying
Accuses both Satan and God and claims: "now we're being punished for our sins"
It's awful quiet in neigbour, a week ago the curtains were closed there
Father told not to go there, said: "what they've done, theyr own business it is... our concern is here"
:;This is ten sticks on the board and gone...
I'm only a seven-year-old but I do understand already something
When the TV is dead and I heard the newsreader in the radio crying
They're talking about some cloud that still is on its way towards us
Little sister asked: "How many days until Christmas?"
And father was wiping his eyes, father was wiping his eyes
:;This is ten sticks on the board and gone...
Powerful words, I'd say. I hope I've managed to conceive at least a bit of the Finnish text's energy into the translation. Finnish people here, tell me what do you think about it. I first heard the song quite young, and while I didn't understand the meaning of the words themselves quite accurately, I did get the impression that the people the song tells about are ****ed up quite bad. Only after many years I understood just how bad.
Ironic, isn't it? 15 years after the cold war was essentially over, the risk of nuclear war is still there. Even though it's still quite unlikely IMO, it still sends shivers down my spine. I can only imagin how people felt during the Cuban missile crisis.
Urgh.
-
My former Social Studies teacher once said that when he was a teenager he often didn't believe he would live into adulthood.
-
Yeah, my parents said it was pretty nasty, no-one knew if they'd be alive the next day.
For my part, I remember the late 70's, when tensions were still high, and the Nuclear Air-Raid siren near me malfunctioned and went off at 2am one morning.
That was the scariest night of my life. The only time I've felt like that since was when the London bombs went off, since I was on the tube about a mile and a half away from one of the explosions.