No war please!
-
I hear all these calls for no war. That is all well and good, but how about we decided to STOP BLOWING EACH OTHER UP. I am beginning to think about the only way to resolve the issue is to have all the Pakistanis return to Pakistan, all of the Indians return to India, and all the Chinese return to China. Then just bloody nuke the land so NOBODY can have it. Until the crux of the issue is resolved, nothing will ever change. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: I am beginning to think about the only way to resolve the issue is to have all the Pakistanis return to Pakistan, all of the Indians return to India, and all the Chinese return to China. Unfortunately, IMHO , this isn't going to happen anytime soon , much the opposite, I simply don't see the pakistan separatists from Kashimir given up of their independence goal and India given up free will the territory ... to worsen the things I think China will not give up from Taiwan and will apply more violent means to force Taiwan to rejoin China , that could lead to US taking definitely the military side of Taiwan and ... but it's better not to think about it :~ Cheers, Joao Vaz A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person - Natalie Portman (Padme/Amidala of Star Wars)
-
Paul Watson wrote: I heard the other day that Russia and America agreed to cut down their nuclear arsenal from 7000 of the truckers to "only" 2000 These things always amuse me. It always goes something like this "OK. XXX people want us to eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. Here's what we're going to do. You eliminate 2000 and we'll eliminate 2000. Now it will take us an extra 35 seconds to destroy each other. This should satisfy XXX people for a while. (Oh, and by the way, we're only eliminating them on paper. We haven't actually constructed the equipment to dispose of them yet.)" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Paul Watson wrote: This is an insane situation, one humanity is not ready to handle. Do away with the weapons before someone somewhere makes a very grave mistake. It is an insane situation. Unfortunantely eliminating the weapons isn't easy and doesn't even solve the problem. The technology will continue to exist and the availablilty of it will continue to increase. If the US and Russia (and the other 9 or so nations) get rid of their nuclear stockpiles it will not prevent rouge nations from obtaiining them in the future.
Matt Gullett wrote: These things always amuse me. It always goes something like this "OK. XXX people want us to eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. Here's what we're going to do. You eliminate 2000 and we'll eliminate 2000. Now it will take us an extra 35 seconds to destroy each other. This should satisfy XXX people for a while. (Oh, and by the way, we're only eliminating them on paper. We haven't actually constructed the equipment to dispose of them yet.)" Man that is sick, but only because it is true. Matt Gullett wrote: If the US and Russia (and the other 9 or so nations) get rid of their nuclear stockpiles it will not prevent rouge nations from obtaiining them in the future. I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) But vs. 2000 American nukes it is nothing. All America needs is 2 nukes to counter act the rogue nations 2 nukes. Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? With more than 50 you are endangering the entire world, not protecting it from some piss ant rogue nation who can blow up at most one American city (Yes, yes don't get all frothy kids, one city is still important, but it is not the whole damned world is it?) I think that is my major point. 2000 nukes is overkill. It is not helping anyone or anything. It is simple endangering the world, full stop. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Matt Gullett wrote: These things always amuse me. It always goes something like this "OK. XXX people want us to eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. Here's what we're going to do. You eliminate 2000 and we'll eliminate 2000. Now it will take us an extra 35 seconds to destroy each other. This should satisfy XXX people for a while. (Oh, and by the way, we're only eliminating them on paper. We haven't actually constructed the equipment to dispose of them yet.)" Man that is sick, but only because it is true. Matt Gullett wrote: If the US and Russia (and the other 9 or so nations) get rid of their nuclear stockpiles it will not prevent rouge nations from obtaiining them in the future. I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) But vs. 2000 American nukes it is nothing. All America needs is 2 nukes to counter act the rogue nations 2 nukes. Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? With more than 50 you are endangering the entire world, not protecting it from some piss ant rogue nation who can blow up at most one American city (Yes, yes don't get all frothy kids, one city is still important, but it is not the whole damned world is it?) I think that is my major point. 2000 nukes is overkill. It is not helping anyone or anything. It is simple endangering the world, full stop. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Paul Watson wrote: I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) I am not saying that the US and others should not eliminate their stockpiles. What I am saying, however, is that eliminating them will not reduce the "real" risk. From what I have seen, heard and can decide for myself, there is little real risk of an all-out launch of numerous nuclear weapons by any nation. The highest risk lies with the 5-15 rouge nations/groups obtaining the technology and using them as terror weapons. Paul Watson wrote: Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? I agree that there is little use for more than 1 or 2 weapons at any given time. The only real benefit I can see to having 2000+ is to 1) say we have more than you and 2) to control access to the materials. However, the argument could be made that having a few large nations control access to 90+% of the weapons material is not a bad thing. This can limit the potential exposure the rest of the world has to rouge nations. Personally, I'd prefer that nuclear weapons didn't exist, but they do. For me the issue is not dismantling the ones that exist, it is controlling access to the materials to make them. The problem with my view (I know, I know) is "who should control the materials?". We can't eliminate the materials or technology. We can't or won't eliminate the rouge nations. Therefore no final solution exists other than the "cold-war" style mutual destruction mantra and this only helps with the rouge nations, not the rouge groups. Sure we could nuke Iraq, but we really can't nuke Al Queda. The only solution to the rouge group issue is controlling access to the materials.
-
Matt Gullett wrote: These things always amuse me. It always goes something like this "OK. XXX people want us to eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. Here's what we're going to do. You eliminate 2000 and we'll eliminate 2000. Now it will take us an extra 35 seconds to destroy each other. This should satisfy XXX people for a while. (Oh, and by the way, we're only eliminating them on paper. We haven't actually constructed the equipment to dispose of them yet.)" Man that is sick, but only because it is true. Matt Gullett wrote: If the US and Russia (and the other 9 or so nations) get rid of their nuclear stockpiles it will not prevent rouge nations from obtaiining them in the future. I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) But vs. 2000 American nukes it is nothing. All America needs is 2 nukes to counter act the rogue nations 2 nukes. Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? With more than 50 you are endangering the entire world, not protecting it from some piss ant rogue nation who can blow up at most one American city (Yes, yes don't get all frothy kids, one city is still important, but it is not the whole damned world is it?) I think that is my major point. 2000 nukes is overkill. It is not helping anyone or anything. It is simple endangering the world, full stop. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
On a ligter note: My father believes that the first rouge nation to develop and threaten to use nuclear weapons should have marshmallows and microwave popcorn air-dropped all over the country with notes stating "microwaves arrive tomorrow".
-
Tim Smith wrote: That opinion is all based on the assumption that one side wouldn't have already blown up the other if the other didn't have nukes. I fully understand the arguement of "that guy has a nuke, we must have one" resulting in a kind of "stalemate." The problem with that is an accident could happen, right? However if no one had nukes then a: no deliberate launch could take place and b: no accident could happen. So naturally the latter situation, no nukes, is a better one. Also while I understand it, I don't like the idea of "at the very least while we are being wiped out, so will they be." It is a sickening thing to contemplate really. I just feel that nukes are not a wise thing for humanity to have. A nuke is not just a bigger stick of dynamite. It is a whole new ball game really. The simple fact that a nuke does not just affect it's target but could very well affect other locations thousands of miles away puts a whole new spin on just what is acceptable to use in a war. Once again to me it seems like we have come too far down the road to try and reverse. We have to now carry on plodding down this mine laden road hoping we don't stand on something, hoping some other converging road will suddenly bring us something which nullifies this nuclear threat. And it has to be a threat still (cold war or not) otherwise we would not all be holding onto every nuke we can. The whole situation just does not have much rationality to it, and accidents can and do happen. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
In a make believe land where everyone can get along, sure, no need for nukes. No need for bombs. No need for guns. But when your local nut/warlord starts building nukes, you need to make sure that they understand that if they use them on you, you will use them on them. Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Tim Smith wrote: I am beginning to think about the only way to resolve the issue is to have all the Pakistanis return to Pakistan, all of the Indians return to India, and all the Chinese return to China. Unfortunately, IMHO , this isn't going to happen anytime soon , much the opposite, I simply don't see the pakistan separatists from Kashimir given up of their independence goal and India given up free will the territory ... to worsen the things I think China will not give up from Taiwan and will apply more violent means to force Taiwan to rejoin China , that could lead to US taking definitely the military side of Taiwan and ... but it's better not to think about it :~ Cheers, Joao Vaz A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person - Natalie Portman (Padme/Amidala of Star Wars)
Which is sort of my point. There really isn't an easy answer. The same is true with the Israel/Palestinian situation. World politics suck :( Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
-
Which is sort of my point. There really isn't an easy answer. The same is true with the Israel/Palestinian situation. World politics suck :( Tim Smith I know what you're thinking punk, you're thinking did he spell check this document? Well, to tell you the truth I kinda forgot myself in all this excitement. But being this here's CodeProject, the most powerful forums in the world and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, Do I feel lucky? Well do ya punk?
Tim Smith wrote: World politics suck Suck big time , and this whole thread on War and nuclear weapons , make me fell dirty X| Cheers, Joao Vaz A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person - Natalie Portman (Padme/Amidala of Star Wars)
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: This really sucks. I just read the newspaper Yea, situation currently looks very tense. Here, air force jets are flying since morning. Its after a long time that jets are continuously flying on the sky for about 12 hours. Imran Farooqui
Where are you located? Karachi?
-
Tim Smith wrote: That opinion is all based on the assumption that one side wouldn't have already blown up the other if the other didn't have nukes. I fully understand the arguement of "that guy has a nuke, we must have one" resulting in a kind of "stalemate." The problem with that is an accident could happen, right? However if no one had nukes then a: no deliberate launch could take place and b: no accident could happen. So naturally the latter situation, no nukes, is a better one. Also while I understand it, I don't like the idea of "at the very least while we are being wiped out, so will they be." It is a sickening thing to contemplate really. I just feel that nukes are not a wise thing for humanity to have. A nuke is not just a bigger stick of dynamite. It is a whole new ball game really. The simple fact that a nuke does not just affect it's target but could very well affect other locations thousands of miles away puts a whole new spin on just what is acceptable to use in a war. Once again to me it seems like we have come too far down the road to try and reverse. We have to now carry on plodding down this mine laden road hoping we don't stand on something, hoping some other converging road will suddenly bring us something which nullifies this nuclear threat. And it has to be a threat still (cold war or not) otherwise we would not all be holding onto every nuke we can. The whole situation just does not have much rationality to it, and accidents can and do happen. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
It's the first time since the Roman Empire that western Europe has known such a long period of peace. And I thanks Nuclear Weapons for that (without, what would have been the consequence of the Berlin blocus, or the Cuba Crisis in the 60's ?) Paul Watson wrote: I just feel that nukes are not a wise thing for humanity to have Would be true if Humanity was wise ! Looking at a news channel, I don't believe it is :(( IMHO, there's no difference between nuclear and conventionnal weapons: they are all made to wound and kill. There's also few differences in their immediate results: what's the difference between Hiroshima and Desdren ? We're talking shit, 'cause life is a 'biz You know it is Everybody tryin' to get rich God damn! All I wanna do is live ! KoRn, Children of the Korn
-
Of course both should be educated, but the interesting thing was that educating the women was much more effective in reducing birth rates. Probably 'cause men thing the best way to finish a day of higher calculus is going home and making some fresh bambinos. ;P
guns don't kill people. cars do.
peterchen wrote: the best way to finish a day of higher calculus is going home and making some fresh bambinos. One of my favorite ways to relax:-D
-
We western europeans needed two worlds wars to understand we wouldn't solve our problems like this. I suppose we can't expect the others to be more clear-sighted. We're talking shit, 'cause life is a 'biz You know it is Everybody tryin' to get rich God damn! All I wanna do is live ! KoRn, Children of the Korn
If by "others" you are talking about us poor misinformed Americans then you had better pass on your lessons for all of us to see. If I remember correctly the European response to Hitler was one of "Let him alone and he will go away". And just what did that accomplish? Perhaps your clear-sightedness is really just tunnel vision ? War can't be all bad or we would not spend so much time and money on it. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Peterchen, war is not a good way to end overpopulation neither hunger , since war brings hunger and hunger brings overpopulation , just see Africa . What we need is better cooperation between countries and to arrange standard ways to help the countries in need . Cheers, Joao Vaz A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person - Natalie Portman (Padme/Amidala of Star Wars)
Yes but its always the same countries "in need". Sooner or later one has to face up to the fact that they are responsible for their on fate and act accordingly. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Yes but its always the same countries "in need". Sooner or later one has to face up to the fact that they are responsible for their on fate and act accordingly. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Sooner or later one has to face up to the fact that they are responsible for their on fate and act accordingly. Unfortunately, many of the politics in power are corrupt and don't give a damn for their people ... just watch Angola , with the President Eduardo dos Santos and the late Jonas Savimbi of the Rebellion Movement Unita ,for these two only thing matters money , e.g diamonds traffic ... and so on :( Cheers, Joao Vaz A person who is nice to you, but rude to the waiter, is not a nice person - Natalie Portman (Padme/Amidala of Star Wars)
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Spare the nukes please!!! You know, this is ironic. You were advocating the stock piling of nukes a few months ago because it helped keep the peace or some such nonsense. Now you are begging for them not to be let loose. Well if they had not stock piled them in the first place there wouldn't be nukes to let loose. This is my firmly held belief: One day there is going to be an accident in a nuclear power. The rest of the world will simply react because it has been set up to automatically react to the launch of a nuclear weapon. If we did not stock pile these killers then the chance of this accident would not be there, we would only have to contend with nutters like Saddam Hussein. I heard the other day that Russia and America agreed to cut down their nuclear arsenal from 7000 of the truckers to "only" 2000. Now tell me if I am wrong, but 2000 nuclear weapons could quite as easily wipe out our world as 7000 can. This is an insane situation, one humanity is not ready to handle. Do away with the weapons before someone somewhere makes a very grave mistake. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Not really true. If you consider that there are two seperate types of nukes - tactical and stratgic and that a nuke is nothing more or less than a big bomb. More people would be killed in a conventional attack on a major city using thermal , cluster, and FAE weapons than if the opposing armies went after it using tactical nukes. Strategic nukes are a different thing - designed to terrorize populations more than anything else - and are not really a major part of military planning anymore. Even a great many our MIRVED missiles carry tactical warheads now. Those that have these weapons are gonna keep them. Those that don't are gonna bitch about it. I want to be on the side thats got them. If one knows he is gonna get beat up then he won't start the fight in the first place. MAD has its place. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
-
Matt Gullett wrote: These things always amuse me. It always goes something like this "OK. XXX people want us to eliminate our nuclear stockpiles. Here's what we're going to do. You eliminate 2000 and we'll eliminate 2000. Now it will take us an extra 35 seconds to destroy each other. This should satisfy XXX people for a while. (Oh, and by the way, we're only eliminating them on paper. We haven't actually constructed the equipment to dispose of them yet.)" Man that is sick, but only because it is true. Matt Gullett wrote: If the US and Russia (and the other 9 or so nations) get rid of their nuclear stockpiles it will not prevent rouge nations from obtaiining them in the future. I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) But vs. 2000 American nukes it is nothing. All America needs is 2 nukes to counter act the rogue nations 2 nukes. Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? With more than 50 you are endangering the entire world, not protecting it from some piss ant rogue nation who can blow up at most one American city (Yes, yes don't get all frothy kids, one city is still important, but it is not the whole damned world is it?) I think that is my major point. 2000 nukes is overkill. It is not helping anyone or anything. It is simple endangering the world, full stop. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
Paul Watson wrote: 2000 nukes is overkill While it's true that having just a couple warheads would be sufficient for a battle, there is a need to be able to deliver them at need. These are not universal designs, but uniquely customized for several platforms. To make them available as needed, too, they have to be redundant - you can't depend on just one B-52 in the wing to have a device, a certain proportion of the force must be equipped so that a device can be delivered on demand. You can't depend on just one or two destroyers have a nuclear missile or two aboard - they might not be in the right ocean when you need them. The 2000 number doesn't seem too high, though we could probably make do with some lower number. The greater risk is from the fringe groups who have just one, and no qualms about dying to set it off. The concept of MAD that kept the world at (relatively speaking) peace for 50 years doesn't apply to these loonies. They don't care if they're destroyed, so there is no deterrence.
-
On a ligter note: My father believes that the first rouge nation to develop and threaten to use nuclear weapons should have marshmallows and microwave popcorn air-dropped all over the country with notes stating "microwaves arrive tomorrow".
LOL! Reminds me of the telegram, "F**k You! Stop. Strong letter follows. Stop."
-
Where are you located? Karachi?
Yes a am in karachi. Here the major air fields of Air Force are located. Because of the presence of two seaports and nuclear reactor, this city was the priary target of Indian Jets during the wars of 1965 and 1971 Imran Farooqui
-
Not really true. If you consider that there are two seperate types of nukes - tactical and stratgic and that a nuke is nothing more or less than a big bomb. More people would be killed in a conventional attack on a major city using thermal , cluster, and FAE weapons than if the opposing armies went after it using tactical nukes. Strategic nukes are a different thing - designed to terrorize populations more than anything else - and are not really a major part of military planning anymore. Even a great many our MIRVED missiles carry tactical warheads now. Those that have these weapons are gonna keep them. Those that don't are gonna bitch about it. I want to be on the side thats got them. If one knows he is gonna get beat up then he won't start the fight in the first place. MAD has its place. Richard Monarchies, aristocracies, and religions....there was never a country where the majority of the people were in their secret hearts loyal to any of these institutions. Mark Twain - The Mysterious Stranger
Richard Stringer wrote: Those that have these weapons are gonna keep them. Those that don't are gonna bitch about it. I want to be on the side thats got them. If one knows he is gonna get beat up then he won't start the fight in the first place. MAD has its place. Sorry, you probably don't realise that I am idealist fanatic living in a real world :-D Basically whatever anyone says MAD is not a nice thing. Sure, it is the best alternative we have at the moment, but if God were around we would ask him to change the situation pretty damn quick. I mean nobody actually WANTS to have to implement a MAD type system. If a better alternative is found then blam, we would be on it like Jar Jar Binks to an accident. Richard Stringer wrote: More people would be killed in a conventional attack on a major city using thermal , cluster, and FAE weapons than if the opposing armies went after it using tactical nukes So one thermal, cluster or FAE unit would kill more than one tactical nuke? What about things like fallout and residual effects? If I let off 5000 FAE (what the heck is an FAE btw?) units would it also terminate life on the planet as would the release of 5000 tactical nukes? (I do realise that tactical nukes have less fallout than other types of nukes, but they still have some fallout, right?) If the answer is "no, 5000 FAEs wouldnt" then I think my point that a nuke (strategic or tactical) is not just a bigger stick of dynamite is right, it is a different ball game and new rules and considerations have to be taken into account. You obviously know a lot more about weapons than I :) (not that I mind in the least!) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Paul Watson wrote: I think that is a moot point. What can a rogue nation do? Maybe construct 1 or at most 2 nuclear weapons. Yes, mass destruction nonetheless (but not global like 2000 can.) I am not saying that the US and others should not eliminate their stockpiles. What I am saying, however, is that eliminating them will not reduce the "real" risk. From what I have seen, heard and can decide for myself, there is little real risk of an all-out launch of numerous nuclear weapons by any nation. The highest risk lies with the 5-15 rouge nations/groups obtaining the technology and using them as terror weapons. Paul Watson wrote: Once you go beyond 50 nukes WTF are you counteracting? I agree that there is little use for more than 1 or 2 weapons at any given time. The only real benefit I can see to having 2000+ is to 1) say we have more than you and 2) to control access to the materials. However, the argument could be made that having a few large nations control access to 90+% of the weapons material is not a bad thing. This can limit the potential exposure the rest of the world has to rouge nations. Personally, I'd prefer that nuclear weapons didn't exist, but they do. For me the issue is not dismantling the ones that exist, it is controlling access to the materials to make them. The problem with my view (I know, I know) is "who should control the materials?". We can't eliminate the materials or technology. We can't or won't eliminate the rouge nations. Therefore no final solution exists other than the "cold-war" style mutual destruction mantra and this only helps with the rouge nations, not the rouge groups. Sure we could nuke Iraq, but we really can't nuke Al Queda. The only solution to the rouge group issue is controlling access to the materials.
Matt Gullett wrote: Personally, I'd prefer that nuclear weapons didn't exist, but they do. For me the issue is not dismantling the ones that exist, it is controlling access to the materials to make them Amen to that Matt Gullett wrote: The problem with my view (I know, I know) is "who should control the materials?". I cannot be the only one who sees the depravity in even having to think of that. Humanity is so far down the bumb-fuck road that even if we have a perfectly sane and safe solution to the nuke stand-off situation we would end up a: fighting over who thought it up, b: not implementing it and c: blaming everything on the other guy for not implementing it. We would not simply go "Wow, thats great, a solution lets do it" and then have everyone do it. I will bet the average populace would, but our so called leaders wouldn't because of egos and pompous posturing! I just think the whole situation is mad and I defy anyone to explain to me why the current situation is actually good. If that person who defies me were presented with the choice of a world with the MAD situation and one without it (and with no possibility of rogue states going, well, rogue) then what would they choose? Hopefully the latter. But it does seem as though some people would choose the former because they see the inherint power in it, which is just f'ing sickening. Ah well, off home to watch Star Trek Voyager, were a nuke is like babies fart and were everyone does the logical and correct thing eventually. Tuvok, beam me up. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
-
Paul Watson wrote: 2000 nukes is overkill While it's true that having just a couple warheads would be sufficient for a battle, there is a need to be able to deliver them at need. These are not universal designs, but uniquely customized for several platforms. To make them available as needed, too, they have to be redundant - you can't depend on just one B-52 in the wing to have a device, a certain proportion of the force must be equipped so that a device can be delivered on demand. You can't depend on just one or two destroyers have a nuclear missile or two aboard - they might not be in the right ocean when you need them. The 2000 number doesn't seem too high, though we could probably make do with some lower number. The greater risk is from the fringe groups who have just one, and no qualms about dying to set it off. The concept of MAD that kept the world at (relatively speaking) peace for 50 years doesn't apply to these loonies. They don't care if they're destroyed, so there is no deterrence.
Roger Wright wrote: While it's true that having just a couple warheads would be sufficient for a battle, there is a need to be able to deliver them at need. These are not universal designs, but uniquely customized for several platforms. To make them available as needed, too, they have to be redundant - you can't depend on just one B-52 in the wing to have a device, a certain proportion of the force must be equipped so that a device can be delivered on demand. You can't depend on just one or two destroyers have a nuclear missile or two aboard - they might not be in the right ocean when you need them. And you don't think that a world in which you have to think "geee, I had better have 2000 extra nukes in case the 30 I just sent to bumb-fuck-China don't make it" is an insane world? The mere act of having to plan like that is insane. Yes I realise we have to because we live in that world, but it just plain old sucks. Anyway, thanks for the input, off to go see how many pedestrians my car can scare on the way home, chow. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and to be loved in return - Moulin Rouge "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."