Nuclear Proliferation

[quote name='MrBadExample']A 90-second film

Anybody think we still need this many nuclear bombs?[/QUOTE]

No, we don't need that many nuclear bombs.
We need more. :lol:

I'd like to see actual numbers of warheads these people are talking about, as well a a few meaningful distinctions.
A single Hydrogen bomb can have well over 100 times the yield of a standard Atomic bomb (the type used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

They don't make any such distinction.. and I'd be fairly certain that with all of the research that went into thier creation, I doubt ALL of the US's arsenel is made simple A-Bombs.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']No, we don't need that many nuclear bombs.
We need more. :lol:

I'd like to see actual numbers of warheads these people are talking about, as well a a few meaningful distinctions.
A single Hydrogen bomb can have well over 100 times the yield of a standard Atomic bomb (the type used in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

They don't make any such distinction.. and I'd be fairly certain that with all of the research that went into thier creation, I doubt ALL of the US's arsenel is made simple A-Bombs.[/QUOTE]

Each BB is equal to 15 Hiroshima-size bombs. I never got the sense they were implying that each BB was one warhead. Still the fact that we have a nuclear arsenal 150,000 times 1 Hiroshima bomb is ludicrous not to mention the $17 billion a year we're losing on upkeep for them.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Each BB is equal to 15 Hiroshima-size bombs. I never got the sense they were implying that each BB was one warhead. Still the fact that we have a nuclear arsenal 150,000 times 1 Hiroshima bomb is ludicrous not to mention the $17 billion a year we're losing on upkeep for them.[/QUOTE]

Maybe we could use constructive ways to use these bombs? Nuclear lamps with matching plutonium coasters? Let radiation leakage wipe out undesireable areas like New Jersey or the set of American Idol?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']I'll have to watch it when I get home, but here's another showing pictures of what's really going on in Iraq. Pretty disturbing.

http://www.bushflash.com/y2.html[/QUOTE]

Its horrible, especially juxtaposed with the peaceful images we used to see from the Iraqi Ministry of Information.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Each BB is equal to 15 Hiroshima-size bombs. I never got the sense they were implying that each BB was one warhead. Still the fact that we have a nuclear arsenal 150,000 times 1 Hiroshima bomb is ludicrous not to mention the $17 billion a year we're losing on upkeep for them.[/QUOTE]

I'd find thier complaints much more compeling if the United States government wasn't already a year into an 8 year plan that will see nearly 40% of it's nuclear arms stockpile dismantled and retired. I'd rather see them do this slowly and correctly rather than as rapidly as some of these people wish it to be.
 
I say we just detonate all of the bombs in Texas and Alabama.

That will solve two problems at once, the large weapon stockpile and asshole nests.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Personally, I'm shocked neither one of you mentioned Ohio.[/QUOTE]

Why? Last time I checked, Ohio wasn't in Jesusland
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Anybody think we still need this many nuclear bombs?[/QUOTE]

I don't think we need any more than 0.
 
[quote name='chunk']I don't think we need any more than 0.[/QUOTE]

That's just foolish.
I can understand why people don't like the idea of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in both the US and Russia, but to say that we should completely disarm seems short-sighted and unrealistic.

If another nation decides to launch a first strike nuclear attack, how do you plan to respond? With sunshine and farts?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']That's just foolish.
I can understand why people don't like the idea of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in both the US and Russia, but to say that we should completely disarm seems short-sighted and unrealistic.

If another nation decides to launch a first strike nuclear attack, you do you plan to respond? With sunshine and farts?[/QUOTE]

So if it's okay with the U.S. having nuclear weapons, then Iran has every right as well.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']That's just foolish.
I can understand why people don't like the idea of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in both the US and Russia, but to say that we should completely disarm seems short-sighted and unrealistic.

If another nation decides to launch a first strike nuclear attack, you do you plan to respond? With sunshine and farts?[/QUOTE]

A few nukes is one thing, but having enough to destroy the earth 1000 time over is a little excesive.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']A few nukes is one thing, but having enough to destroy the earth 1000 time over is a little excesive.[/QUOTE]

Of course it is... that's why I think stockpile reduction is a good idea.
I also think the direction that the US's stockpile is more favorable as well... many of the arms that will be remaining will be tactical nukes, most of them less powerful that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Of course, that has been the general direction these arms have been taking.. after detontating Castle/Bravo, and the Soviets detonating thier 50 megaton warhead, most arms have been designed to be more of "tactical strike" weapons (having near or less than 1 megaton yeild)
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']So if it's okay with the U.S. having nuclear weapons, then Iran has every right as well.[/QUOTE]

They're a sovereign nation. They can do whatever they want to...
provided they're willing to put up with the consquences.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']They're a sovereign nation. They can do whatever they want to...
provided they're willing to put up with the consquences.[/QUOTE]


Correct. As long as they don't use them on other countries, they have every right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons. North Korea, too. Why should the U.S. and a few others have a nuclear deterrent?
 
[quote name='JSweeney']They're a sovereign nation.[/QUOTE]

For now they are. Who knows what will happen if Bush's poll numbers keep plummeting. :)
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Correct. As long as they don't use them on other countries, they have every right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons. North Korea, too. Why should the U.S. and a few others have a nuclear deterrent?[/QUOTE]

I believe that this ends up being more of a United Nations issue.
Even if these two nations got nuclear weapons, they'd have to be outright stupid to try to launch a nuclear strike on American soil.

However, other nations in thier regions would be rather concerned, as they have no real deterant, and Iran and North Korea already seem rather hostile to them.
 
The UN needs a weapons stockpile.

"If you don't stop starving, torturing and raping people we are gonna nuke yourass" and "elect this, dictator!".
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Correct. As long as they don't use them on other countries, they have every right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons. North Korea, too. Why should the U.S. and a few others have a nuclear deterrent?[/QUOTE]
Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty...Look it up.
 
[quote name='Ugamer_X']Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty...Look it up.[/QUOTE]

Also known as the 'we've got 'em and you don't, Na-na-na-na-na-na!" treaty.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Correct. As long as they don't use them on other countries, they have every right to build an arsenal of nuclear weapons. North Korea, too. Why should the U.S. and a few others have a nuclear deterrent?[/QUOTE]

As long as loaded guns are not used to shoot someone, gangsters should be allowed to have them. Why should only police get to have guns?
 
[quote name='gamefreak']As long as loaded guns are not used to shoot someone, gangsters should be allowed to have them. Why should only police get to have guns?[/QUOTE]

Ask republicans that question. They seem to think that if everyone packed heat, then there would be no crime.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Also known as the 'we've got 'em and you don't, Na-na-na-na-na-na!" treaty.[/QUOTE]

No one forced Iran and North Korea to sign the NPT, although admittedly N.Korea has withdrawn from it.
 
[quote name='JSweeney']That's just foolish.
I can understand why people don't like the idea of massive stockpiles of nuclear weapons in both the US and Russia, but to say that we should completely disarm seems short-sighted and unrealistic.

If another nation decides to launch a first strike nuclear attack, how do you plan to respond? With sunshine and farts?[/QUOTE]

:lol: How could you possibly call disarming shortsighed? Tell me, what do you plan on doing in the long term when you start using those weapons?

And sunshine and farts is exactly how we should respond to a nuclear attack. In fact, you might as well use those farts to blow some kisses while you are down there kissing your ass goodbye.
 
:lol: How could you possibly call disarming shortsighed? Tell me, what do you plan on doing in the long term when you start using those weapons?

This isn't the era of Mutually Assured Destruction.
There would be no long term nuclear war. The newer nuclear powers that are more apt to use the weapons couldn't sustain that sort of activity.


And sunshine and farts is exactly how we should respond to a nuclear attack. In fact, you might as well use those farts to blow some kisses while you are down there kissing your ass goodbye.

Did you have a point? I think you've lost it.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']I say we just detonate all of the bombs in Texas and Alabama.

That will solve two problems at once, the large weapon stockpile and asshole nests.[/QUOTE]


Right there is discrimination against Christians. Thats the equivilant of saying, "we should drop bombs on highly populated Christian areas."

That is no different than saying, "we should drop bombs on highly populated gay areas."
 
[quote name='JSweeney']This isn't the era of Mutually Assured Destruction.
There would be no long term nuclear war. The newer nuclear powers that are more apt to use the weapons couldn't sustain that sort of activity.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but you are missing the reason why nuclear weapons are so dangerous. You don't need sustained activity. A short nuclear war could do a fine job of putting this planet out of commission for the next 10,000 years. When it comes to nuclear weapons mutually assured destruction doesn't require long term use.
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Right there is discrimination against Christians. Thats the equivilant of saying, "we should drop bombs on highly populated Christian areas."

That is no different than saying, "we should drop bombs on highly populated gay areas."[/QUOTE]

Well, gays are generally pretty lively and fun. Conteporary christian music is horrible. So there's a pretty big difference.
 
[quote name='atreyue']Well, gays are generally pretty lively and fun. Conteporary christian music is horrible. So there's a pretty big difference.[/QUOTE]


Why bother to respond with something so utterly stupid that it lowers the IQ of anyone who reads it?
 
[quote name='chunk']Yeah, but you are missing the reason why nuclear weapons are so dangerous. You don't need sustained activity. A short nuclear war could do a fine job of putting this planet out of commission for the next 10,000 years. When it comes to nuclear weapons mutually assured destruction doesn't require long term use.[/QUOTE]

I didn't think that any single warhead could do enough damage to cause such widespread destruction. Unless you're just talking about the global ecology being off-whack, which is hardly out of commission.

But maybe someone's got one of those Marvin the Martian fatty bombs...
 
[quote name='dmpolska']Why bother to respond with something so utterly stupid that it lowers the IQ of anyone who reads it?[/QUOTE]

Some call them jokes. If it's obviously a joke, why respond seriously?

Although contempo christian really does suck.
 
[quote name='Rich']Anyways, :lol: at this thread. I can't believe some of these posts.[/QUOTE]

You damn right-leaners and your mocking laughter! :p
 
[quote name='atreyue']You damn right-leaners and your mocking laughter! :p[/QUOTE]

IBTN. :bouncy: Maybe I should make my sig align right!

Seriously though---allow North Korea to peacefully seek nuclear weapons? Totally dismantly our nuclear arsenal?
 
[quote name='atreyue']I didn't think that any single warhead could do enough damage to cause such widespread destruction. Unless you're just talking about the global ecology being off-whack, which is hardly out of commission.

But maybe someone's got one of those Marvin the Martian fatty bombs...[/QUOTE]

A single warhead? There are hundreds of sovereign countries in the world and to say that some of them should be allowed warheads while others aren't violates their sovereignty.

That being said, a single warhead could result in a hundred warheads.
 
[quote name='chunk']Yeah, but you are missing the reason why nuclear weapons are so dangerous. You don't need sustained activity. A short nuclear war could do a fine job of putting this planet out of commission for the next 10,000 years. When it comes to nuclear weapons mutually assured destruction doesn't require long term use.[/QUOTE]

You do realize that Multiple large warhead (FAR, FAR larger than the conventional arms that make of the majority of arsenels now) have already been detonated.
Heck, it would take around 50 of the tactical nukes the US has to even reach the level of the bombs the Soviets tested, and 35 to even reach the level of Castle/Bravo.

Save the US and Russia, There are no other forces in the world with enough nuclear arms to even make that possible. There have already been more nukes tested on Russian and American soil than most of those countries have.
 
[quote name='atreyue']I didn't think that any single warhead could do enough damage to cause such widespread destruction. Unless you're just talking about the global ecology being off-whack, which is hardly out of commission.

But maybe someone's got one of those Marvin the Martian fatty bombs...[/QUOTE]

Aww.
Where's the earth shattering kaboom?
There's supposed to be an earth-shattering kaboom!
 
[quote name='Drocket']Also known as the 'we've got 'em and you don't, Na-na-na-na-na-na!" treaty.[/QUOTE]

Succint and to the... pointless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top