[NGTM-1R]

Do you honestly believe after reading that article that Reagan wouldn't have tried to use neutron bombs in Vietnam had he been the one in charge back then?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but he didn't use them, so whether we were backed into the compliment or not we have a pretty good track record. The probablity of past events doesn't matter for science, it happened, so whether it should have or not is moot.

[KewlToyZ]

I just have one last thing to say about these off topic debates...
Despite all of the destructive force present in this entire system of events, the young men and women on these front lines of Iraq are there out of purely idealistic views and completely voluntarily. No matter how much a person could wish to find fault in that, they are living with insurmountable potentials of violence in their lives every day they are there. Not to mention the civilian populations in these regions and the attrocities they face just trying to raise their families every day. I spoke at a BBQ with an officer from Iraqi intelligence here near DC. He looks like he has aged 10 years in just 6 months from the levels of stress he faces every day. I can only imagine the decisions he faces on a regular basis. All I can say a man of extraordinary courage, heart, and volition would place himself in the position he faces.
All through this entire process we are borrowing from our friends in China to continue these operations for peace in the Middle East so hopefully some day we won't find this such a heated debate. I hope one day very very soon this is a moot point to bring up energy concerns of a society ever coming into question. I hate the fact Iran is even being considered a part of this entire series of events.

[Kosh]

Instead they have placed their stronger youth of the military in harms way trying to root out as much of the Al-Queada leadership as logic and political restraint allows them. Sending aid whenever possible to the peaceful civilian populace trying to push the balance in that region without the barbarism of Saddahm Hussein.

You do realize that Al-Queada's greatest ally in the region has always been Saudi Arabia, right? Over he last 30 years it has spent billions of our own petro dollars setting up extremist religious schools in Saudi Arabia and abroad that serve as a major recruiting ground.

Even so, Al-Queda was very much our own creation.

[KewlToyZ]

You actually think all of the business being done in Dubai is not a front for major intelligence?
Its the financial hub at the center of it all.
Have you tried getting one of those 6 figure jobs working in that region?
What is driving this money machine?
You are talking about a party region where the princes make in excess of 30 billion a day.
More money than attributable to that upper 1% of America's wealthiest.
How many people would attribute their resources to those people out of simple jealous animosity in the war of the "Have and Have Nots?"

Why was Bin Ladens family the only civilian flight allowed during the 911 incident?
Do we have the right to freeze those assets based upon accusation and cripple global economies?
Placing entire regions of families in a state of crisis and emergency?
Because one angry family member committed mass murder, your entire family is put to death by angry mobs in the heat of the moment?

We can debate all of this, sure I love to debate, but I stay away from trolls and do not wish to be one in any respect and hope I do not come off as one ever. That being said, I'm glad to have this conversation. We all learn from eachother and that is the secret to compromise being the source of a global societies evolution and growth. Tradition is a beatiful romance of ceremony and should be respected. Change is inevitable as the information age brings us closer to the point of claustrophobia due to world population and consumption ever increasing.
Getting back to the topic of Fusion an alternative energy sources.
Alternative energy is going to be the solution to the bleak outlooks we all are consumed by in the past 10 years.
The biggest problem is we use our consciences and experiences to the point of procrastination during these infant stages of change.
The Earth is going to be fine regardless of what we do to it.
It was here long before we infested it and long after we could be gone due to our insolence.
Our responsibility is to life and the existence of not just humanity but the evolution of all species.
Am I going to become a Vegan? Nope. I'm a predator and I love meat.
Green Weeks and other awareness programs are merely stimulating change in spite of the drama we face with the current attrocities we are capable of. I guess the main reason I was attracted by this thread is the stupidity I see in the big picture in the amount of positive, experienced people and resources being quagmired by the ill informed. None of us wish to be part of that group. But we are of course all human and need to debate these issues publicly and genuinely speak up out of common sense instead of letting those who whine the loudest rule our lives.
A trend we have only begun being aware of. Like I said before, repeating a lie until we beleive its truth is what kills us most.
Myself, I want one of those coke a cola sized machines in my yard making hydrogen for my car from water and electricity.
I wish I had the capital to invest into what the Netherlands have already accomplished.
You really want to remove power from the middle east? All while building up our own countries economic staminas?
Alternative energy infrastructure changes will never get cheaper than now.
Inflation and war are screaming these facts in our faces but we do have to take risks.
I would rather look at ecological balancing influences and negating my carbon foot print with my daily activities than seeing the potential that my kids are going to be risking their lives at the hands of irresponsible political dog and pony shows over petroleum based economies.
A curious pundit as we approach elections and we have Paris Hilton making a more remarkable infomercial than our candidates.

[Mars]

You actually think all of the business being done in Dubai is not a front for major intelligence?
Its the financial hub at the center of it all.
Have you tried getting one of those 6 figure jobs working in that region?
What is driving this money machine?
You are talking about a party region where the princes make in excess of 30 billion a day.
More money than attributable to that upper 1% of America's wealthiest.
How many people would attribute their resources to those people out of simple jealous animosity in the war of the "Have and Have Nots?"

Why was Bin Ladens family the only civilian flight allowed during the 911 incident?
Do we have the right to freeze those assets based upon accusation and cripple global economies?
Placing entire regions of families in a state of crisis and emergency?
Because one angry family member committed mass murder, your entire family is put to death by angry mobs in the heat of the moment?

We can debate all of this, sure I love to debate, but I stay away from trolls and do not wish to be one in any respect and hope I do not come off as one ever. That being said, I'm glad to have this conversation. We all learn from eachother and that is the secret to compromise being the source of a global societies evolution and growth. Tradition is a beatiful romance of ceremony and should be respected. Change is inevitable as the information age brings us closer to the point of claustrophobia due to world population and consumption ever increasing.
Getting back to the topic of Fusion an alternative energy sources.
Alternative energy is going to be the solution to the bleak outlooks we all are consumed by in the past 10 years.
The biggest problem is we use our consciences and experiences to the point of procrastination during these infant stages of change.
The Earth is going to be fine regardless of what we do to it.
It was here long before we infested it and long after we could be gone due to our insolence.
Our responsibility is to life and the existence of not just humanity but the evolution of all species.
Am I going to become a Vegan? Nope. I'm a predator and I love meat.
Green Weeks and other awareness programs are merely stimulating change in spite of the drama we face with the current attrocities we are capable of. I guess the main reason I was attracted by this thread is the stupidity I see in the big picture in the amount of positive, experienced people and resources being quagmired by the ill informed. None of us wish to be part of that group. But we are of course all human and need to debate these issues publicly and genuinely speak up out of common sense instead of letting those who whine the loudest rule our lives.
A trend we have only begun being aware of. Like I said before, repeating a lie until we beleive its truth is what kills us most.
Myself, I want one of those coke a cola sized machines in my yard making hydrogen for my car from water and electricity.
I wish I had the capital to invest into what the Netherlands have already accomplished.
You really want to remove power from the middle east? All while building up our own countries economic staminas?
Alternative energy infrastructure changes will never get cheaper than now.
Inflation and war are screaming these facts in our faces but we do have to take risks.
I would rather look at ecological balancing influences and negating my carbon foot print with my daily activities than seeing the potential that my kids are going to be risking their lives at the hands of irresponsible political dog and pony shows over petroleum based economies.
A curious pundit as we approach elections and we have Paris Hilton making a more remarkable infomercial than our candidates.

Can you back up any of those?

[KewlToyZ]

That would take considerable time wouldn't it?
I'm not going to dance around the issue of validity with anyone as it will never cease to be challenged.
I know I am an optomist in many of my views but I am an honest man willing to invest his time to hope others would share my beleif that the world isn't inherently evil and all is not lost by a long shot.
I'll make a deal with you since your investment here is one sentence long with a simple question.
Give me one instance to validate and I'll do my best to provide reasonable proof.

In the same regard, can you deny them with just as valid proof you claim to have for doubt?
I look forward to the response regardless because both of us stand to learn something new in the process changing our perspectives.

[NGTM-1R]

That would take considerable time wouldn't it?
I'm not going to dance around the issue of validity with anyone as it will never cease to be challenged.
I know I am an optomist in many of my views but I am an honest man willing to invest his time to hope others would share my beleif that the world isn't inherently evil and all is not lost by a long shot.
I'll make a deal with you since your investment here is one sentence long with a simple question.
Give me one instance to validate and I'll do my best to provide reasonable proof.

In the same regard, can you deny them with just as valid proof you claim to have for doubt?
I look forward to the response regardless because both of us stand to learn something new in the process changing our perspectives.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but more to the point, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Sure, validity can always be challenged, but there comes a point where further challenge grows ludicrious. If you have the facts, why the hesitance to back them up?

Argument from ignorance doesn't fly. Just because you can't prove something does not exist does not mean it does.

[IceFire]

I'm with Kewl about having a hydrogen system in my back yard.  Its doable now...its expensive...but its doable.  And yes its hooked up to the power grid but my power comes from nuclear and hydro so its already relatively green energy compared to the likes of oil and coal burning.  I say bring on the Honda FCX-Clarity and Honda's Hydrogen Fuel Generating stations or whatever Toyota, GM, or anyone else wants to throw at it.

I also don't like the tone of some folks in the thread about the "greenies".  Unfortunately groups like Greenpeace alienate the typical person and generally don't have a realistic outlook on how to balance human wants. needs, and desires for standards of living with environmental concerns.  I'm an environmentalist but I don't want to go back to pre-industrial living....we must step forwards and we must be conscious of our environment and the damage we do to it.  IF were smart then we can figure out how to balance the two....and I think we're pretty damn smart but we're also incredibly moronic.

So...combine things like solar which can be done in multiple forms and gets better and more efficient every year, plus wind which can be done many ways as well, plus tidal power which hasn't been proven in the field yet (but soon), plus nuclear for now and fusion in the future.  Having power sources like those instead of burning coal and oil is a huge difference...if we can do those things and we can make the average car a hydrogen vehicle then we've solved all sorts of problems.  Some of those problems solved are political...we don't have to fight over oil pipelines because we can make the hydrogen in all kinds of places.

BTW: There is a reasonably solid rebuttal on Wikipedia in the same article area:

Response to criticism

Proponents believe that much of the ITER criticism is misleading and inaccurate, in particular the allegations of the experiment's "inherent danger." The stated goals for a commercial fusion power station design are that the amount of radioactive waste produced be hundreds of times less than that of a fission reactor, that it produce no long-lived radioactive waste, and that it be impossible for any fusion reactor to undergo a large-scale runaway chain reaction. This is because direct contact with the walls of the reactor would contaminate the plasma, cooling it down immediately and stopping the fusion process. Besides which, the amount of fuel planned to be contained in a fusion reactor chamber (one half gram of deuterium/tritium fuel[27]) is only enough to sustain the reaction for an hour at maximum,[28] whereas a fission reactor usually contains several years' worth of fuel.[29] In case of accident (or intentional act of terrorism) a fusion reactor releases far less radioactive pollution than an ordinary fission nuclear plant. Besides, tritium being lighter than air would rise up into stratosphere where it very soon dilutes to concentrations far below natural background radioactivity of air. Proponents note that large-scale fusion power — if it works — will be able to produce reliable electricity on demand and with virtually zero pollution (no gaseous CO2 / SO2 / NOx by-products are produced).

According to researchers at a demonstration reactor in Japan, a fusion generator should be feasible in the 2030s and no later than the 2050s. Japan is pursuing its own research program with several operational facilities exploring different aspects of practicability.[30]

In the United States alone, electricity accounts for US$210 billion in annual sales.[31] Asia's electricity sector attracted US$93 billion in private investment between 1990 and 1999.[32] These figures take into account only current prices. With petroleum prices widely expected to rise, political pressure on carbon production, and steadily increasing demand, these figures will undoubtedly also rise. Proponents contend that an investment in research now should be viewed as an attempt to earn a far greater future return for the economy.[citation needed] Also, worldwide investment of less than US$1 billion per year into ITER is not incompatible with concurrent research into other methods of power generation.[citation needed]

Contrary to criticism, proponents of ITER assert that there are significant employment benefits associated with the project. ITER will provide employment for hundreds of physicists, engineers, material scientists, construction workers and technicians in the short term, and if successful, will lead to a global industry of fusion-based power generation[citation needed].

Supporters of ITER emphasize that the only way to convincingly prove ideas for withstanding the intense neutron flux is to experimentally subject materials to that flux — one of the primary missions of ITER and the IFMIF,[33] and both facilities will be of vital importance to the effort due to the differences in neutron power spectra between a real D-T burning plasma and the spectrum to be produced by IFMIF.[34] The purpose of ITER is to explore the scientific and engineering questions surrounding fusion power plants, such that it may be possible to build one intelligently in the future. It is nearly impossible to get satisfactory theoretical results regarding the properties of materials under an intense energetic neutron flux, and burning plasmas are expected to have quite different properties from externally heated plasmas.[citation needed] The point has been reached, according to supporters, where answering these questions about fusion reactors by experiment (via ITER) is an economical research investment, given the monumental potential benefit.

Furthermore the main line of research—the tokamak—has been developed to the point that it is now possible to undertake the penultimate step in magnetic confinement plasma physics research—the investigation of ‘burning’ plasmas in which the vast majority of the heating is provided by the fusion event itself. A detailed engineering design, supported by substantial technology R&D, has been developed for a tokamak experiment which would explore burning plasma physics and integrate reactor relevant technology. In the tokamak research program, recent advances in controlling the internal configuration of the plasma have led to the achievement of substantially improved energy and pressure confinement in tokamaks—the so-called ‘advanced tokamak’ modes—which reduces the projected cost of electricity from tokamak reactors by a factor of two to a value only about 50% more than the projected cost of electricity from advanced light-water reactors. In parallel, progress in the development of advanced, low activation structural materials supports the promise of environmentally benign fusion reactors, and research into alternate confinement concepts is yielding promise of future improvements in confinement. [35]

Finally, supporters point out that other potential replacements to the current use of fossil fuel sources have environmental issues of their own. Solar, wind, and hydroelectric power all have a relatively low power output per square kilometer compared to ITER's successor DEMO which, at 500 MW,[citation needed] should have an energy density that exceeds even large fission power plants [36]

So Fusion, depending on who you believe, is much less of a problem than it appears to be.  It seems like this is something some serious money should be spent on and right away.  Lots of less useful things get tons of money.

[KewlToyZ]

That would take considerable time wouldn't it?
I'm not going to dance around the issue of validity with anyone as it will never cease to be challenged.
I know I am an optomist in many of my views but I am an honest man willing to invest his time to hope others would share my beleif that the world isn't inherently evil and all is not lost by a long shot.
I'll make a deal with you since your investment here is one sentence long with a simple question.
Give me one instance to validate and I'll do my best to provide reasonable proof.

In the same regard, can you deny them with just as valid proof you claim to have for doubt?
I look forward to the response regardless because both of us stand to learn something new in the process changing our perspectives.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but more to the point, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim. Sure, validity can always be challenged, but there comes a point where further challenge grows ludicrious. If you have the facts, why the hesitance to back them up?

Argument from ignorance doesn't fly. Just because you can't prove something does not exist does not mean it does.

Well based on the reasonably dead horse trolling is that people keep kicking,
I had to request some more input based on such a smug and very little effort question.
But I'm glad you bring up the fact that you find my claims extraordinary.
All I am asking is what specifically seems unlikely or without evidence and contived if you will?
Don't say all of it, thats completely contrived and wreaks of pedantic trolling.
I do not mean any insult towards you or others here.
All I ask is a reasonable investment of time from both members invested for an enlightened conversation.

[karajorma]

Then pick a subject and stick with it. The point you decided to make was that sponsorship of terrorism makes Iran untrustworthy with nukes. I pointed out that America has sponsored the very terrorists you're complaining about. You then pepper arguments around that have very little to do with the discussion in hand and expect people to take your outlandish questions on trust. Either stick to the discussion at hand or don't bother discussing at all.


As for the discussion itself. There is a big difference between saying should Iran have the nuke and should America? In case you haven't noticed I've been pointing out the hypocrisy that often appears when people try to argue the former shouldn't but defend the latter's right to them.


Oh and America only gave a stuff about Bin Laden when he turned on them. If he had been blowing up Iranian buildings they probably wouldn't have given a damn and would only have made a token effort to catch him. Can you honestly see America supporting an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan had 9/11 killed 3000 Iranians? Don't kid yourself into think America are taking responsibility.

When Iranian sponsored terrorists starts attacking Iran then you might see them do something cleaning up their mess. If anything your arguments prove my point. America has been responsible for toppling more governments, starting more wars, committing more assassination attempts and whole bunch of other foreign policy cluster****s than Iran ever has.

It's all very well pointing out that once Iran has the nuke a more fundamental regime may decide to use them but why not apply that logic to America?

Perhaps, perhaps not, but he didn't use them, so whether we were backed into the compliment or not we have a pretty good track record. The probablity of past events doesn't matter for science, it happened, so whether it should have or not is moot.

It does matter when you're trying to argue that America can be trusted with nukes in the future while Iran can't.

Oh and you have the worst track record. Nukes used in wartime, 100% American.

[NGTM-1R]

It does matter when you're trying to argue that America can be trusted with nukes in the future while Iran can't.

Oh and you have the worst track record. Nukes used in wartime, 100% American.

That's the exact same argument intelligent design people would use about evolution, in different clothing. The probablity is so low it must be impossible! (Unless there is an outside source!) Probablity of past events is irrevelant. Probablity of future events is not, and since GWB wasn't crazy enough to order a nuclear attack in response to 9/11 or the use of neutron bombs in Iraq, and he's the most inept, fundie, and militarily incompetent president the US is likely to elect for the foreseeable future, I'd say it's safe to let the US keep their nuclear weapons for another forty years or so.

And the wartime use is irrevelant because what we're worried about here is nukes used in a preemptive strike or terroristic attack, not in wartime against an opponent who fired the first shots and in an attempt to prevent even more serious bloodshed by impressing upon them the utter futility of further resistance. (Since arguably, the entire use of nuclear weapons was a bluff, as the US didn't actually have any more and it would have taken at least a couple months to assemble and ship them, if not longer. Recall that building three bombs took them a good two years.)

[sardaukar86]

It is said that nuclear fusion produces more power than nuclear fission, but I don't think anyone has managed to control nuclear fusion yet. Controlling nuclear fission was done back in the 1940s to produce the A-Bomb.

Heh, there's nothing controlled about a fission bomb.. although I do see what you were getting at.

Fission-based power plants are capable of delivering almost as much collective benefit (low waste, high output, high reliability, 0% of meltdown) as the 'we'll have it in 50 years' commercial fusion reactors are predicted to deliver.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love fusion plants tomorrow as much as the next geek but the truth is that fusion research has become a giant porkbarrel where money is the motivating factor rather than good science.

The real problem with fission is the States is that reprocessing is a swearword that equates to 'nookular weppins for them ay-rabs' in the minds of most average folk in the US.  This is the result of uneducated FUD. Modern nuclear fission concepts are pretty darn slick, pretty darn efficient, and pretty darn safe.  Check out Wikipedia for details on the nuclear lightbulb and pebble-bed reactor designs.

No energy source is completely safe, but at least it takes transport out of the equation.  Those supertankers filled to the gunnels with liquid natural gas?  About the same explosive energy as sixty Hiroshima bombs, according to the Discovery channel (ingest with sodium chloride as appropriate).  I believe Little Boy was about 13 Kilotons (some say up to 17), so we're talking damn near three-quarters of a megaton in one vessel alone.  Who needs nuclear weapons with fuel tankers like these?

Sorry, this wasn't aimed at you specifically, I actually agree with most of your post.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

It is said that nuclear fusion produces more power than nuclear fission, but I don't think anyone has managed to control nuclear fusion yet. Controlling nuclear fission was done back in the 1940s to produce the A-Bomb.

Heh, there's nothing controlled about a fission bomb.. although I do see what you were getting at.

Fission-based power plants are capable of delivering almost as much collective benefit (low waste, high output, high reliability, 0% of meltdown) as the 'we'll have it in 50 years' commercial fusion reactors are predicted to deliver.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love fusion plants tomorrow as much as the next geek but the truth is that fusion research has become a giant porkbarrel where money is the motivating factor rather than good science.

The real problem with fission is the States is that reprocessing is a swearword that equates to 'nookular weppins for them ay-rabs' in the minds of most average folk in the US.  This is the result of uneducated FUD. Modern nuclear fission concepts are pretty darn slick, pretty darn efficient, and pretty darn safe.  Check out Wikipedia for details on the nuclear lightbulb and pebble-bed reactor designs.

No energy source is completely safe, but at least it takes transport out of the equation.  Those supertankers filled to the gunnels with liquid natural gas?  About the same explosive energy as sixty Hiroshima bombs, according to the Discovery channel (ingest with sodium chloride as appropriate).  I believe Little Boy was about 13 Kilotons (some say up to 17), so we're talking damn near three-quarters of a megaton in one vessel alone.  Who needs nuclear weapons with fuel tankers like these?

Sorry, this wasn't aimed at you specifically, I actually agree with most of your post.

TRIFORCE SAYS...

If you were attacking me in that post, which you are not ( ), I didn't notice.

There was some explosion back in the early 1900s which had a blast yield of 30 megatons. Rumour is that a UFO exploded.

I actually agree with you. Technology has definitely improved over the past 60 years, so the use of nuclear fuel, as well as its risks, are well-documented. Nobody wants a nuclear fallout, which is why the only nuclear attacks I've read of are the Hiroshima and Nagasaki ones, although I know that other nukes have been triggered in unpopulated areas before.

[karajorma]

That's the exact same argument intelligent design people would use about evolution, in different clothing. The probablity is so low it must be impossible! (Unless there is an outside source!).

Yes. And you're the one making it! You're the one claiming that since Reagan never got the chance to be in a war where he'd use nukes the fact that he didn't use them means he could be trusted with them. You're the one claiming that the probability of past events is irrelevant.

That's a similar argument to saying someone you suspect is dangerously insane is perfectly trustworthy with a gun because he hasn't killed anyone yet.

Probablity of past events is irrevelant. Probablity of future events is not, and since GWB wasn't crazy enough to order a nuclear attack in response to 9/11 or the use of neutron bombs in Iraq, and he's the most inept, fundie, and militarily incompetent president the US is likely to elect for the foreseeable future, I'd say it's safe to let the US keep their nuclear weapons for another forty years or so.

The conditions weren't right for the USA to get away with a nuclear first strike against Afghanistan. Any use of nukes would have lost them UN backing which they were desperate to get at that point. Plus Bush didn't have them anyway. The neutron bombs were dismantled under Bush Snr as the article states.

And don't bet that Bush is the worst we've seen. People said the same about Reagan.

And the wartime use is irrevelant because what we're worried about here is nukes used in a preemptive strike or terroristic attack, not in wartime against an opponent who fired the first shots and in an attempt to prevent even more serious bloodshed by impressing upon them the utter futility of further resistance.

So hypothetically you'd have no objection to Iran being allowed to developing nukes if there was some way for the launch codes to remain with other more stable governments to be given to Iran if they were attacked by the USA for instance then?

[ssmit132]

There was some explosion back in the early 1900s which had a blast yield of 30 megatons. Rumour is that a UFO exploded.

Tunguska Event. 1908.

The Tunguska Event, or Tunguska explosion, was a massive explosion that occurred near the Podkamennaya (Lower Stony) Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai of Russia, at around 7:14 a.m. (0:14 UT, 7:02 a.m. local solar time) on June 30, 1908 (June 17 in the Julian calendar, in use locally at the time).

Although the cause is the subject of some debate, the explosion was most likely caused by the air burst of a large meteoroid or comet fragment at an altitude of 5–10 kilometres (3–6 miles) above Earth's surface. Different studies have yielded varying estimates for the object's size, with general agreement that it was a few tens of metres across.

Although the meteor or comet burst in the air rather than directly hitting the surface, this event is still referred to as an impact. Estimates of the energy of the blast range from 5 megatons to as high as 30 megatons of TNT, with 10–15 megatons the most likely - roughly equal to the United States' Castle Bravo thermonuclear explosion set off in late February of 1954, about 1000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan and about one third the power of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. The explosion knocked over an estimated 80 million trees over 2,150 square kilometres (830 square miles). It is estimated that the earthquake from the blast would have measured 5.0 on the Richter scale, which was not yet developed at the time. An explosion of this magnitude is capable of destroying a large metropolitan area. This possibility has helped to spark discussion of asteroid deflection strategies.

Although the Tunguska event is believed to be the largest impact event on land in Earth's recent history, impacts of similar size in remote ocean areas would have gone unnoticed before the advent of global satellite monitoring in the 1960s and 1970s.

BTW: There is a reasonably solid rebuttal on Wikipedia in the same article area:

Thought about putting that in my initial post, but decided to trim it to just the criticism.

[NGTM-1R]

Yes. And you're the one making it! You're the one claiming that since Reagan never got the chance to be in a war where he'd use nukes the fact that he didn't use them means he could be trusted with them. You're the one claiming that the probability of past events is irrelevant.

Try that on again. You're either delibrately misinterpreting or not thinking it through, because they argue the probablity of past events is relevant...just like you are.

So hypothetically you'd have no objection to Iran being allowed to developing nukes if there was some way for the launch codes to remain with other more stable governments to be given to Iran if they were attacked by the USA for instance then?

I doubt you could make them secure enough from tampering for this situation to be viable, but if that were possible, then no, honestly I wouldn't.

[karajorma]

Try that on again. You're either delibrately misinterpreting or not thinking it through, because they argue the probablity of past events is relevant...just like you are.

They argue that the probability of past events is relevant to whether or not they could have actually occured. Therefore if something has a low probability of occurring it couldn't possibly have happened that way. I have no idea how you possibly see that as what I'm doing.

[Flipside]

* Flipside Wanders happily down memory lane...

Ahhh. Just like the old days

[Mars]

Well based on the reasonably dead horse trolling is that people keep kicking,
I had to request some more input based on such a smug and very little effort question.
But I'm glad you bring up the fact that you find my claims extraordinary.
All I am asking is what specifically seems unlikely or without evidence and contived if you will?
Don't say all of it, thats completely contrived and wreaks of pedantic trolling.
I do not mean any insult towards you or others here.
All I ask is a reasonable investment of time from both members invested for an enlightened conversation.

With all do respect, I gave your post approximately the respect it deserved. You ask for an enlightened conversation, and for that to work you can't just say odd things in disconnected logic that sort of kind of present an argument without anything to back it up. Previous posts didn't make statements outrageous enough to get to me, but in that particular posts, the majority of the arguments seemed kinda... well... made up.

Such tidbits such as: "You are talking about a party region where the princes make in excess of 30 billion a day." and "Myself, I want one of those coke a cola sized machines in my yard making hydrogen for my car from water and electricity." simply demand a source. If there's a machine that fits in my back yard that produces enough hydrogen to run my house, I definitely haven't heard about it. From my understanding it's difficult for a gas station sized object to produce enough hydrogen to run a soccer mom's car for a week, such as the one featured on Thomas Friedman's documentary "Green: The New, Red, White and Blue" on Discovery. Similarly $30bn dollars a day? Really?

[Kosh]

For all the money we've blown in Iraq we could have used it to invest in a real hydrogen economy/R&D. $1 trillion can go a long way to solving this problem.