Nuclear Weapons [modified]
-
Don't look for morality in international politics, you will only see your own prejudices. Mine are that undemocratic, belligerents theocracies should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons any more than I would like to see an assault rifle in the hands of a schizophrenic. The whole MAD philosophy breaks down without rational actors, which for all their bluster, both the west and the soviets were throughout the cold war. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Mine are that undemocratic, belligerents theocracies should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons any more than I would like to see an assault rifle in the hands of a schizophrenic.
Oh, the irony!
Why is that ironic? George Bush (and all our other electable officials) were elected. GW is also not a church leader and we have complete religious freedom in this country. Are you angry because your preferred candidate(s) lost or something?
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Mine are that undemocratic, belligerents theocracies should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons any more than I would like to see an assault rifle in the hands of a schizophrenic.
Oh, the irony!
Oh, the crappy moral equivalence! Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
SaRath C wrote:
sorry im not used to visit soapbox forum
Your question shows it! to be true almost world wars have happened and over on this issue here. Anyway, I'd reply you still . NO.
--[V]--
-
SaRath C wrote:
sorry im not used to visit soapbox forum
Your question shows it! to be true almost world wars have happened and over on this issue here. Anyway, I'd reply you still . NO.
--[V]--
-
Yeah, but that's only because we're not right next to France!
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
-
I think there was some discussion of making small tactical nukes to be used in the battlefield (launched out of rocket launchers and such), but they probably won't do that.
-
Why is that ironic? George Bush (and all our other electable officials) were elected. GW is also not a church leader and we have complete religious freedom in this country. Are you angry because your preferred candidate(s) lost or something?
I think the irony was that Iran is a theocracy and it held elections and is therefore a democracy* * I don't know enough about the process of its elections, so I cannot comment on the legitimicy of its electoral process. However, there are western nations where the government gained a majority despite only 35% of the people voting for them (i.e. the UK)
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage (1791-1871) My: Website | Blog
-
Is the US continuing to make nukes? I don't think so - I think they have enough already, and making more wouldn't serve any purpose, unless they want to sell some of it in future. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Nuclear weapons have a limited shelf-life. I believe (and I could be wrong) the US is manufacturing more nuclear weapons (more modern and sophisticated versions), but not at a rate to replace the ones being decommissioned. Also, back in 2002 Bush and Putin signed an arms reduction treaty: President Putin and [Bush] have signed a treaty that will substantially reduce our nuclear -- strategic nuclear warhead arsenals to the range of 1,700 to 2,200, the lowest level in decades. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524-10.html[^] Oh, and here's a graph of the US nuclear arsenal from 1945 to 2002: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_nuclear_warheads_1945-2002_graph.png[^] ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^] -- modified at 19:23 Thursday 25th May, 2006
-
Is the US continuing to make nukes? I don't think so - I think they have enough already, and making more wouldn't serve any purpose, unless they want to sell some of it in future. Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications.Try your Google fu on Reliable Replacement Warhead[^] if you're interested. The U.S. is planning the next generation of nukes for itself. Steve
