North Korea admits it has secret nuclear weapons programme
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. Possible. But he is also correct. Please read up on the behavior of the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor. Sounds a lot like today. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
Richard Stringer wrote: the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. disgusting -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material? From everything I've read about how a nuclear power plant works, I think there are very major differences in infrastructure--mining, processing, storage, containment, supporting technology, etc. Just the process of enrichment requires a completely different infrastructure, doesn't it? Marc
Marc Clifton wrote: Isn't there a technology difference between a nuclear plant for power generation, vs. a plant designed to refine and enrich uranium into bomb grade material Not in some cases. Most bombs these days are plutonium based weapons - not U235. U238 can be used in power reactors and if the reactor is a type called "fast breeder" reactors they can produce ploutonium as a byproduct. This can be refined fairly easily to produce weapon grade material. Remember that there are no plutonium mines. It is a completly artifical element. Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Leads to the question - why was peace promoted so nicely while Clinton was in office, but the Bush family seem to cause so much disturbance? Is it just bad luck timing? Sorry, I don't live in US, so something of a mystery for me. :suss:
Dave Goodman on funny error messages:
It is a definite no-no to run BITMAP as a user command. Your nose will grow, your lawn will die, your hair will fall out, and your first-born will marry an aardvark. Shame on you!The North Koreans admit that the nuclear program was started in the Clinton administation. Clinton wanted a weapons inspection program (to verify that they weren't building nukes), but when North Korea wasn't going for it, he didn't press the issue. Hence, it's not an issue about "Clinton = peace, Bush = war". If Bush ignores Iraq, the next president will have the same exact problem except replayed with Iraq. Then, we'll call it the next president's fault? ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Chris Hambleton wrote: Now, call me silly, but why GIVE a nation nuclear technology after they just signed a treaty with you not to develop their own... I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. :confused: I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. The N.Koreans, then turned around and threatened to restart their nuclear programs if U.S didn't compensate for electricity lost due to delays in the power plant construction. WTF? Supposedly in early '99, inspectors reported no evidence of "nuclear activity". I guess they were fooled. You don't think the Iraqi's would try to hide their activity too, do you?? :omg: BW The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to talk, mad to live, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding. - Jack Kerouac
I couldn't quite figure the logic in that either. I don't think those facilities were actually started until late '99, though. Actually, the nuclear reactors are still in the process of being constructed. Link The logic of building nuclear powerplants might go back to an agreement made a long time ago - the nuclear powers said that if countries agree not to build nukes, that they'll get the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology (i.e. powerplants and radioactive elements for medical uses, etc) Some countries want it both ways, though. For example, Iraq wants a nuclear weapons program, but shows images of children dying of cancer (which can be treated with radioactive elements). ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Richard Stringer wrote: the Dems in the year prior to Pearl Harbor i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. disgusting -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. And repeat it they do. The Dems as a party have always taken the path of least resistance and have , since FDR's days , held the position that the cure for every ill is another tax, another regulation, another federal project. They pander to every little political cause de jour that comes along as long as it will keep them in office. Details available if you need them but why am I preaching to the choir ? Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
-
Chris Losinger wrote: i'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that none of the people in politics then are active now, or even alive. partisan blame - it's fun and easy, but it gets the country nowhere. If you don't learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. And repeat it they do. The Dems as a party have always taken the path of least resistance and have , since FDR's days , held the position that the cure for every ill is another tax, another regulation, another federal project. They pander to every little political cause de jour that comes along as long as it will keep them in office. Details available if you need them but why am I preaching to the choir ? Richard When I reflect upon the number of disagreeable people who I know have gone to better world, I am moved to lead a different life. Mark Twain- Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar
and what's the Republican's answer? as far as i can tell, it's to curtail the rights listed in amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. i got one word for you: USAPATRIOT -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen maybe your wish will come true. Stan Shannon wrote: Try "Democrats". you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. God's knows I try. Glad to get some recognition. But I honestly forgot that some see partisanship as evil. Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
and what's the Republican's answer? as far as i can tell, it's to curtail the rights listed in amendments 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 10. i got one word for you: USAPATRIOT -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Sorry, Chris, but I don't think people who vote Dem even understand why those admendments were written in the first place. Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th. CONSTITUTIONALPATRIOT. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Chris Losinger wrote: you are truly disgusting. that is truly disgusting. partisan blame - when all else fails. God's knows I try. Glad to get some recognition. But I honestly forgot that some see partisanship as evil. Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Personally, I don't know how you avoid it. the range of opinions is not linear. the next time someone has an opinion on world affairs, resist the urge to shout "Liberal!" if you simply disagree with that opinion. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
Sorry, Chris, but I don't think people who vote Dem even understand why those admendments were written in the first place. Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th. CONSTITUTIONALPATRIOT. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
I was surprised no one posted this link yesterday. Anyway, I hate North Korea for this. North Korea even complained, "You've called us the 'axis of evil' and you have troops stationed in South Korea, of course we have a nuclear program." First, the 'axis of evil' term wasn't even given to North Korea until YEARS after their nuclear program was started. And why are these countries so stupid to believe that their inclusion in the 'axis of evil' is because the US woke up one day and decided to hate them? It's because of their belligerence, hostility, and militarization that they are included in the 'axis of evil'! Didn't the North Koreans notice that they were the ones who invaded South Korea? And isn't it the North Koreans who have TWICE as many active military personel as South Korea and the US (in South Korea) have COMBINED? Isn't it North Korea that has over 5% of its population in active military duty? (South Korea, on the other hand, has only 1.3% of it's population in active military service.) North Korean Active Military: 1,127,000 South Korean Active Military: 633,000 US forces in South Korea: 35,000 - It seems that nuclear technology (like all technology) started out being available only after enormous effort and genious (through the Manhatten Project in the US). Now that it's been done, it is progressively easier for each country to create their own nuclear weapons. Now, we're down to North Korea having a nuclear program. Further, nuclear armament is a one-way street (with the rare exception of the Ukraine who gave up their nukes when they broke away from the USSR*). Based on trends and the declining costs, it's obvious that the world will become more and more full of nuclear weapons - and in the hands of more and more countries. More and more independent groups with nukes means a greater chance of black-market nuke sales, and it means a greater chance of nuclear war (since any single person in control of nukes can ignite a nuclear war). With the spread of nuclear technology and the declining cost, it seems that it will only be a matter of time before terrorists can get nukes on the black market. And it's only a matter of time before a nuclear strike happens somewhere on earth. And it's next to impossible to reverse this trend. * I believe this was easier since Ukraine didn't develop the nukes themselves. Hence, the rule may be something like, "No country which has ever created a nuclear weapons program has ever gone non-nuclear." It probably reflects the fact th
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Dem's only believe in one admendment - the 14th Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. -c
Alcohol is the anesthesia by which we endure the operation of life. -- George Bernard Shaw
Chris Losinger wrote: Repub's only believe in one amendment, the 2nd - all other amendments are for communists. and they all dress like it's still 1982. and every single one of them has an IQ below 80. and they eat their young. Yeah, so what? "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Worse things could happen. I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power.
I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power. (grin) You realize that the US wasn't the only one fighting for South Korea, don't you, Londo? Australia (among others) also had troops fighting for South Korea. ( Link ) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
(from the Google News site). Hmmm. Was Bush right about the "axis of evil" (god, where did he come up with that phrase anyways)? Are we Americans gulligble fools to believe the treaty that Clinton administration signed in 1994? Are we going to war with NK next? What does it all mean??? Marc
It may be right , or it may be wrong , different sources give it differing interpretations. However it is only a matter of time before all countries of the world either have nuclear weapons or have the knowledge needed in order to do so. What then ? Do you stamp on each and every one ? Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
-
Paul Riley wrote: All-in-all he's being backed into a corner. The question is, will he fight his way out, talk his way out or simply lie down and play dead (another cold war)? Bets? Here's another thought to consider: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. The 1st result, no new resolution and no inspections. The 2nd result, America and small group of countries go it alone. The 3rd result, America resigns from UN membership and demands rent for prime NYC real estate. The 4th result, Kofi Annan says, "whats up with that" as UN moves to Geneva to pick the reins from League of Nations.
Mike Gaskey wrote: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. Your sources, please ? Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
It may be right , or it may be wrong , different sources give it differing interpretations. However it is only a matter of time before all countries of the world either have nuclear weapons or have the knowledge needed in order to do so. What then ? Do you stamp on each and every one ? Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . Am I the only one forever playing catch up with technology , while all the juicy opportunites keep rolling by ?
Do we face a future of a continual stream of potential threats of mass destruction ? Exactly. It would appear to be reality in the short term . In the longer term only a world consensus or government will work , we are a long way off that . World consensus cannot and will not work when the actors don't want them to. Even a third-world country like Iraq has defied the UN (which represents the world's consensus) to pursue its own selfish aims. And it looks like the UN is going to just roll over in the face of Iraqi pressure. World politics is essentially like a bunch of people living in a village with no recognised authority (i.e. no police). You want everyone to behave themselves, but if one person gets out of line, all you can do is say, "Please don't do that. Please???" That's exactly whats happening with the UN and Iraq. Further, take actors like OBL who's goal is an Islamic worldwide government. If that's not okay with everyone else, that's just too bad, because his vision isn't going to be disuaded by the opinions of other people. You simply cannot ever keep the world's countries in line without the plausible threat of force unless you remove everyone's brain. Saying that you could do this without the threat of force is like saying you could have a city where everyone obeys the law even though there are no police. To make matters worse, the spread of nuclear weapons means a reduction in the plausible use of force. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
I doubt it, considering last time you guys had a squabble with NK, China was backing it up. China *is* a nuclear power. (grin) You realize that the US wasn't the only one fighting for South Korea, don't you, Londo? Australia (among others) also had troops fighting for South Korea. ( Link ) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Christian Graus wrote: This does not prove they are going to aim the first one they get to fly at Hollywood and let 'er rip. Yeah, I seriously doubt they would be willing to do us that *big* of a favor.:laugh: "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Just a reminiscence "Calling J-Man Kink. Calling J-Man Kink. Hash missile sighted, target Los Angeles. Disregard personal feelings about city and intercept." Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
-
Mike Gaskey wrote: Russia, in violation of UN agreements, sells weaponry to Iraq and votes against any action in Iraq owing to billions in outstanding collectibles which will be sunk cost if weaponry discovered. France, ditto. Your sources, please ? Some of those that work forces Are the same that burn crosses ! Killing In The Name/Rage Against The Machine
KaЯl wrote: Your sources, please ? 1. A reported fact, regarding 7 billion due from Iraq. 2. Logic Logic: Given that the previous UN resolutions (all 16) have been ignored by Iraq and both Russia and France have thus far refused to support a new resolution that would actually allow inspections to work this is the only interpretation I vcould make. I would also include Germany, because of their stance and reported trade with Iraq, and, Ukraine, which just publically doing something similar. But these don't have Security Council votes, so I didn't bother. Mike
-
KaЯl wrote: Your sources, please ? 1. A reported fact, regarding 7 billion due from Iraq. 2. Logic Logic: Given that the previous UN resolutions (all 16) have been ignored by Iraq and both Russia and France have thus far refused to support a new resolution that would actually allow inspections to work this is the only interpretation I vcould make. I would also include Germany, because of their stance and reported trade with Iraq, and, Ukraine, which just publically doing something similar. But these don't have Security Council votes, so I didn't bother. Mike