Topic: How long until the next use of nuclear weaponry?

[Canuckguy]

    Nukes make Bubbles cry

[StoneChimes]

I wanna be the guy who claims to know what's going to happen 500 years into the future. 

I hear that senior us military advisors want the nuclear option off the table. Even with tactical bunker-busting/installation strikes. It's Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney who've insisted that use of nuclear devices remains an option. So as long as they remain in power it's a genuine threat.. but this seems designed to stir up the Iranians and, more indirectly, North Korea. I think they want Iran and N.Korea to snap and do something rash so it has an excuse to obliterate them. The Republicans want to give people an excuse to vote Republican to be able to stay in power after Bush's final term. After what has gone on in the last 5 years and all the unanswered questions, it frightens me to think what lengths they might go to.

But the more I think about it, even just writing this, the more confusing it is. So many of the variables are plainly obvious but there seems to be so much missing information. I don't think we'll know the full extent of what is going on for a long time.

So, in colclusion, I think that they should get the Mighty Geelong Cat's to go in and sort it out! GO CATS!! YEAH!!!

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Canuckguy]

I say under 20 years, and a good possibility within 10, and against Iran.

[Maddoggystyle]

The next time someone gives me beans to eat,, now that might blow a hole in Canada tee hee

[_DrP_]

anyone who isn't a fookin' idiot, would probably know it's not a good idea to use nuclear weapons... AT ALL! 

but some people ARE fookin' idiot's, so no doubt the world will be blown to pieces pretty soon...

[Julians_Wife]

maybe someone should just get nuclear on Bush, Cheny's and Rumsfelds asses, just bring them to some place like Area 51 and have at it. Maybe they've still got some aliens there too and they can do probing and what not to the B.R.C. trio ......... my friend calls them the war time trio.

[RumNCoke]

I hope to God never again. Nukes are weapons of last resort so the situation would have to be very desperate and grim for them to be used again. Nuclear weapons should not exist, period. But I'll tell you one thing, definitely no nation in the Middle East should be allowed to posses nuclear technology.

[bigbenjamin]

Did any of you guys ever get this notorious email? :


Virus Update

Symantec Virus Alert Center

Hello Subscriber,

As part of our ongoing effort to keep Symantec clients up to date
on virus alerts, this e-mail is being sent to all Symantec subscribers.
A new, deadly type of virus has been detected in the wild. You should
not open any message entitled "LAUNCH NUCLEAR STRIKE NOW",
as this message has been programmed to access NORAD computers in Colorado
and launch a full-scale nuclear strike on Russia and the former Soviet
states. Apparently, a disgruntled ex-Communist hacker has designed a
pernicious VBScript that actually bypasses the U.S. arsenal's significant
security system and takes command of missiles and bombers directly. By
opening the e-mail, you may be causing Armageddon. Needless to say,
Armageddon will wipe out your hard drive and damage your computer.

Again, we warn you, PLEASE, DO NOT OPEN ANY E-MAIL ENTITLED
"LAUNCH NUCLEAR STRIKE NOW". YOU MAY CAUSE A FULL-SCALE
NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.

As a precaution, all U.S. nuclear missiles have been set to
"Do Not Authorize Launch Via E-Mail" to prevent an accidental
armageddon. However, due to a  bug, the possibility still exists
that you may end life as we know it on this planet by opening the
aforementioned e-mail.

VIRUS NAME: ArmaGeddyLee, HappyOrMaybeNot00, OopsWrongButton00
TRANSMITTAL METHOD: VBScript attached to e-mail
HAZARD: Extremely Super High
AREA OF INFECTION: Detected in wild
CHARACTERISTICS: Destroys life on earth via nuclear armageddon

Please forward this warning to everyone you can. Thank you for your
attention to this matter,

Sincerely,

The Symantec Anti-Virus Team


  silly cheers!

[StoneChimes]

I hope to God never again. Nukes are weapons of last resort so the situation would have to be very desperate and grim for them to be used again. Nuclear weapons should not exist, period. But I'll tell you one thing, definitely no nation in the Middle East should be allowed to posses nuclear technology.

But if the US didn't posess nuclear weapons - why would any country in the near east or central asia waste their time with nuclear programmes? outside of their energy and medical needs of course.

[Julians_Wife]

LMAO that's hilarious Ben, can't say I have seen it before tho.

[Canuckguy]

I hope to God never again. Nukes are weapons of last resort so the situation would have to be very desperate and grim for them to be used again. Nuclear weapons should not exist, period. But I'll tell you one thing, definitely no nation in the Middle East should be allowed to posses nuclear technology.

But if the US didn't posess nuclear weapons - why would any country in the near east or central asia waste their time with nuclear programmes? outside of their energy and medical needs of course.

Theres millions of people who would LOVE if the USA lost thier super power.  If the USA didnt have nukes we'd all be fucked.  One rogue country with 4 nukes could crush the US government and economy if there wasnt a thousand nukes ready to fire back.
Posted on: Apr 11, 2006, 09:37 PMOur greatest mistake was when we first got the bomb, we should have disarmed the world before the USSR made theirs.  We should have forced the world to peace and kept any country from making nukes.  Only a few hundred nukes in the USA would be needed to keep world peace.

We could have freed the entire world from war, Africa, Asia, India and Pakistan, the middle east.....  The scientists including Einstein should have pushed harder for world disarmament when the nuke was first used.

[trailerchick]

I hope to God never again. Nukes are weapons of last resort so the situation would have to be very desperate and grim for them to be used again. Nuclear weapons should not exist, period. But I'll tell you one thing, definitely no nation in the Middle East should be allowed to posses nuclear technology.

But if the US didn't posess nuclear weapons - why would any country in the near east or central asia waste their time with nuclear programmes? outside of their energy and medical needs of course.

I was going to say something like that. If your "percieved" enemy has a big stick...you're going to want one too. If Israel's got one...then it follows that the rest of the middle east,especially those countries that feel threatened by Israel's existance are going to believe they need nuclear weaponary as well. Quite a vicious little circle actually.


No one should have them in reality.....but as long as we believe the path to peace lies on the shoulders of the concept of "Mutual Assured Destruction"...they will to continue to exist and the race for bigger and better weapons will continue.

[Canuckguy]

the moment the us got the nuke they should have occupied Russia as well.  The US could have occupied the world and a few decades later they could have moved out and the world would be peaceful, as long as countries were constantly monitored to make sure they didnt build secret nukes.

[trailerchick]

I hope to God never again. Nukes are weapons of last resort so the situation would have to be very desperate and grim for them to be used again. Nuclear weapons should not exist, period. But I'll tell you one thing, definitely no nation in the Middle East should be allowed to posses nuclear technology.

But if the US didn't posess nuclear weapons - why would any country in the near east or central asia waste their time with nuclear programmes? outside of their energy and medical needs of course.

Theres millions of people who would LOVE if the USA lost thier super power.  If the USA didnt have nukes we'd all be fucked.  One rogue country with 4 nukes could crush the US government and economy if there wasnt a thousand nukes ready to fire back.
Posted on: Apr 11, 2006, 09:37 PMOur greatest mistake was when we first got the bomb, we should have disarmed the world before the USSR made theirs.  We should have forced the world to peace and kept any country from making nukes.  Only a few hundred nukes in the USA would be needed to keep world peace.

We could have freed the entire world from war, Africa, Asia, India and Pakistan, the middle east.....  The scientists including Einstein should have pushed harder for world disarmament when the nuke was first used.

CG...you're assuming that the US government or any government for that matters,actually desire's world peace.

World Peace implies removing fear from your population,of removing the one thing that leads to the notion of social control.

It is the requirement per say of every sovereign state to exert some sort of control over it's citizens: to keep them orderly and reasonably docile. To keep them obeying the laws and paying their taxes. And it's a pretty proven notion that social control is often best managed through fear. If we disarm all our enemies...then fear ebbs...and as fear ebbs we become a little less paralysed and a little more critical of what our Governemts are doing and how we are being treated.

[shake]

You wouldn't think a thread with such a title could be so amusing.  You're a bit out of your element CG discussing such a subject but thanks for the entertainment

Our greatest mistake was when we first got the bomb, we should have disarmed the world before the USSR made theirs.  We should have forced the world to peace and kept any country from making nukes.  Only a few hundred nukes in the USA would be needed to keep world peace.

Awfully liberal use of the word "we" wouldn't you say

[Canuckguy]

You wouldn't think a thread with such a title could be so amusing.  You're a bit out of your element CG discussing such a subject but thanks for the entertainment

Our greatest mistake was when we first got the bomb, we should have disarmed the world before the USSR made theirs.  We should have forced the world to peace and kept any country from making nukes.  Only a few hundred nukes in the USA would be needed to keep world peace.

Awfully liberal use of the word "we" wouldn't you say

I would say the same thing about you, give us some insight into how you feel about the subject, and then you can criticise me.  Are you saying we should sit back and let the middle east go nuclear?  Let's hear the insights of shake and then the playing field will be more level, and we can equally criticise eachother.
Posted on: Apr 11, 2006, 10:59 PMJust because I like to occationally overdrink (well fuck Im Irish for christs sake)  doesnt mean I cant have an intelligent conversation about such a serious matter.  Don't criticise without giving some sort of personal opinion on the subject man.

You joined the thread just to start shit?  I might have to give ya a warning   Comment on the subject heheheh

[shake]

Nah I ain't saying anything, it is a complicated subject and not one in which I claim to have any expertise.  I just find statements like

the moment the us got the nuke they should have occupied Russia as well. 

for example, to be amusing.  I'm off to bed now I hope the world is still around tomorrow morning.

[Canuckguy]

Nah I ain't saying anything, it is a complicated subject and not one in which I claim to have any expertise.  I just find statements like

the moment the us got the nuke they should have occupied Russia as well. 

for example, to be amusing.  I'm off to bed now I hope the world is still around tomorrow morning.

Ive researched WW2 more than any other subject.  Thats my opinion after all the research I've done, and if you want to criticise it, feel free, but give me something to debate, and don't insult me by telling me I'm out of my element......this is my subject.

[Julians_Wife]

all I'm going to say is this, there's too much money in wars to let us have world peace.

[bigbenjamin]

What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima. ~ John Hersey


ain't gonna study war no more cheers

[shake]

Nah I ain't saying anything, it is a complicated subject and not one in which I claim to have any expertise.  I just find statements like

the moment the us got the nuke they should have occupied Russia as well. 

for example, to be amusing.  I'm off to bed now I hope the world is still around tomorrow morning.

Ive researched WW2 more than any other subject.  Thats my opinion after all the research I've done, and if you want to criticise it, feel free, but give me something to debate, and don't insult me by telling me I'm out of my element......this is my subject.

Well I was hoping to be in bed by now.  I'll comment more tomorrow but I'll leave you with 2 quick thoughts...

Do you think it would have been practical or easy for the US to "occupy" Russia?

Your poll left out perhaps a very serious threat of nuclear attack, specifically the chance that some terrorist group might get their hands on nuclear weaponry.  In particular some separatist faction of the former Soviet Union get their hand on Soviet nuclear weapons that are no longer guarded as tightly as they should be.  This was a real threat for the last 15 years or so, but I hope things are improving.

[Canuckguy]

Nah I ain't saying anything, it is a complicated subject and not one in which I claim to have any expertise.  I just find statements like

the moment the us got the nuke they should have occupied Russia as well. 

for example, to be amusing.  I'm off to bed now I hope the world is still around tomorrow morning.

Ive researched WW2 more than any other subject.  Thats my opinion after all the research I've done, and if you want to criticise it, feel free, but give me something to debate, and don't insult me by telling me I'm out of my element......this is my subject.

Well I was hoping to be in bed by now.  I'll comment more tomorrow but I'll leave you with 2 quick thoughts...

Do you think it would have been practical or easy for the US to "occupy" Russia?

Your poll left out perhaps a very serious threat of nuclear attack, specifically the chance that some terrorist group might get their hands on nuclear weaponry.  In particular some separatist faction of the former Soviet Union get their hand on Soviet nuclear weapons that are no longer guarded as tightly as they should be.  This was a real threat for the last 15 years or so, but I hope things are improving.

I added the terrorist option.  A nuclear weapon isn't easy to get for terrorists, even with the former soviet contries, with thier weak weapon security.  They understand the threat from the Arab world and I doubt they would sell it to them.  The only way terrorists are going to get the nuke is if Iran can finally finish a few.  Thats why the US govn is planning on striking, they want to keep the middle east including terrorists from going nuclear.

[bigbenjamin]

CG, I did not vote because none of the choices reflect my thinking. "Anytime" - could you include that choice? Given the fact that this nightmare weapon exists and has been used against civilian populations, I can't imagine that the same obscene thing won't happen again. It could occur anytime.

ANYTIME . .


carpe diem fackin cheers!

[Canuckguy]

The main problem is the middle eastern governements dont share the oil wealth with their people.  If democracy reigned, they would all have good jobs and their taxes would be very low.  Its just a matter of convincing them........perhaps Afghanistan will show them it works well, if we can make that country successful (without opium sales)
Posted on: Apr 11, 2006, 11:56 PM

CG, I did not vote because none of the choices reflect my thinking. "Anytime" - could you include that choice? Given the fact that this nightmare weapon exists and has been used against civilian populations, I can't imagine that the same obscene thing won't happen again. It could occur anytime.

ANYTIME . .


carpe diem fackin cheers!

done and done

[tan]

   i really can't reply to this at all....i have never followed up on the war much or politics....i'm a nervous wreck as it is, and having a brother that is now in and out of mental hospitals because of the war in irac, which basically led me to lose my brother i always tend to stay away from the news or discussion of it.....i think its pointless and stupid and i never could understand why it happens...

tan