New job for Saddam
-
I can only assume you are implying that Pakistan got it's nukes from the US. There was a very large article in Scientific American a few years ago about Pakistan's and India's nuclear program. No, they didn't get them from the US. But, then, America is always guilty of any conceivable accusation until proven innocent, isn't it, Kant? ------------------------------------------ "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
Pakistan got most of its technology from China and North Korea whilst India has strong military relationships with Israel and good technological skill of its own. I criticized US support for Pakistan in the past, but I think that they have no responsabilities for the nukes and I never see articles or other documentation proving the opposite. P.S. the fact that I agree with you about history and US foreign policy has nothing to do with christmas :) -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD
-
If terrorists armed with box cutters could kill 3,000 in a morning, what might they do with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons? That is the question that has consumed the Bush White House for the past 15 months. Facing it has to mean facing Mr. Hussein, the only man who has actually used weapons of mass destruction in war. Read more here: Bush's motive? Security[^] Kant Sonork-100.28114 Success is only a matter of luck. Ask any failure.
Kant wrote: ...Mr. Hussein, the only man who has actually used weapons of mass destruction in war. I believe Mr. Hussein poses a threat and that there is enough moral cause to depose him without bringing nuclear and/or bio-chemical weapons into the argument. However, you do need to get your facts straight. The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan (causing fewer casualities than the conventional bombings and saving countless Japanese and Allied lives.) The participants in WWI used chemical weapons on each other to a devastating effect. That being said, Hussein has shown a fearsome callousness to human life in his use of bio-chemical weapons on his own people as well as on Iranians as well as the deliberate lighting of the Kuwati oil wells, which caused terrible harm to people and the environment. Add to that his glee in watching people being tortured and executed and you have, well, a psychopath.
-
I can only assume you are implying that Pakistan got it's nukes from the US. There was a very large article in Scientific American a few years ago about Pakistan's and India's nuclear program. No, they didn't get them from the US. But, then, America is always guilty of any conceivable accusation until proven innocent, isn't it, Kant? ------------------------------------------ "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
-
> the only man who has actually used weapons of mass > destruction in war How about US using WMD on Japan? History is a prostitute really :) Kagetsya dogd' nashinaetsya :)
-
Kant wrote: ...Mr. Hussein, the only man who has actually used weapons of mass destruction in war. I believe Mr. Hussein poses a threat and that there is enough moral cause to depose him without bringing nuclear and/or bio-chemical weapons into the argument. However, you do need to get your facts straight. The US dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan (causing fewer casualities than the conventional bombings and saving countless Japanese and Allied lives.) The participants in WWI used chemical weapons on each other to a devastating effect. That being said, Hussein has shown a fearsome callousness to human life in his use of bio-chemical weapons on his own people as well as on Iranians as well as the deliberate lighting of the Kuwati oil wells, which caused terrible harm to people and the environment. Add to that his glee in watching people being tortured and executed and you have, well, a psychopath.
What do you think about Kim Jong-il and its despotic reign in North Korea. Millions are starving there, he's making the same thing to his people than Pol-pot did in Cambodia: it can be considered as a genocide, as the starving in Ukraine in the 1930s. NK is definitely a much bigger threat than Iraq now, it actually may have A-bombs :omg:, and ICBM :wtf:!
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
-
Brit wrote: Pakistan managed to create nukes without anyone noticing Actually not...and no surprise at all.. Both USA and Russia were aware of Pakistan nuclear program during the entire period of 70s-90s. When Pakistan conducted first cold test in 1985, CIA report was immediately published. Imran Farooqui World first Urdu Instant Messenger[^] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Java is a tool for creating applications that torture users with its awful speed and its ugly interfaces. Daniel Turini commenting on this article
Yep, I remember having reading this in a scientific magasine '(Science & vIe) around '86 . The front page was a drawing of a nuclear bomb with the pakistanese flag on it, and the title (:~ ): Does Pakistan have the bomb ?
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
-
Funny how the news goes these days. We are looking and looking for evidence that Saddam Hussein is building a nuclear weapon, but can't find it. Meanwhile in the US, even the trees are radioactive near our nuclear weapons labs. Somehow, Saddam Hussein has enriched uranium from its 0.7% natural abundance of 235U to weapons-grade uranium with better than 90% 235U, and disposed of all his waste without creating any noticeable environmental radioactivity. Perhaps the US should employ Saddam Hussein to teach us how to run an environmentally friendly nuclear weapons program. Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill
Maybe you should just read your own link again. The radiooactivity had nothing at all to do with uranium enrichment, but instead was the result of previous explosive tests... If you are going to post things like this and jump to rediculous conclusions, at least be accurate. :|
-
What do you think about Kim Jong-il and its despotic reign in North Korea. Millions are starving there, he's making the same thing to his people than Pol-pot did in Cambodia: it can be considered as a genocide, as the starving in Ukraine in the 1930s. NK is definitely a much bigger threat than Iraq now, it actually may have A-bombs :omg:, and ICBM :wtf:!
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
This is exactly why we need to get rid of Saddam Hussein now! KaЯl wrote: What do you think about Kim Jong-il and its despotic reign in North Korea. I think it's despicable. Unfortunately, the dynamics of the region, specifically China's alliance with, and defense of, North Korea prevents stronger action from being taken. And there is the real possibility that North Korea already has a nuclear bomb--we know they have the missiles. Evidence is that China is getting upset at North Korea and their intransigence as well. The US is largely deferring to the Chinese in an attempt to solve the problem with North Korea. However, I don't believe North Korea to be a more destabilizing influence in the world today than Iraq. Unlike Kim Jong-il, who is mostly just extremely incompetent in addition to be an egotist, Saddam already sees himself as a martyr, which is what makes him so dangerous.
-
> the only man who has actually used weapons of mass > destruction in war How about US using WMD on Japan? History is a prostitute really :) Kagetsya dogd' nashinaetsya :)
Marat Bedretdinov wrote: > the only man who has actually used weapons of mass > destruction in war How about US using WMD on Japan? History is a prostitute really What the original author was trying to say, but didn't say correctly was that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons fully knowing the gruesomeness effects. In WWI, Europeans originally thought chemical weapons were just another weapon until they started seeing the results on the battlefield. So gruesome was it, such weapons were banned. In WWII, the nuclear bomb was so ruinous that no nation since has ever used one in war. Saddam Hussein is dangerous because he has no inhibitions using WMD. He's used them in the past, and he won't hesitate to use them in the future.
-
Brit wrote: I can only assume you are implying that Pakistan got it's nukes from the US. Wrong. As per recent news reports they got it from North Korea. Kant Sonork-100.28114 Success is only a matter of luck. Ask any failure.
Wrong. As per recent news reports they got it from North Korea. Actually, it was the other way around. North Korea got it's nukes from Pakistan. Pakistan, in return, got North Korean missle technology. ------------------------------------------ "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
-
In an interview one of SH's generals stated they have everything to build a bomb with but they just haven't put it together yet! I don't know if the guy is still alive though. ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
-
Andrew Torrance wrote: Its about oil. Then, when are we invading Venezuela?
-
Maybe it is true, but it is not reason to forbid Iraq to make nuclear weapons, because we do not know who will be next president of some other country which already has nuclear weapons. A president already used nuclear weapons.
The US in WWII was the first nation to ever use nuclear weapons. Since then, they've never been used. Effectively, such weapons have been banned from being used in war. Since WWII, the US has demonstrated excellent restraint through several armed conflicts, several presidential administrations and the changing of hands between Democrat and Republicans. The nuclear weapon is so devastating that its use is politically unacceptable except for a means of deterrence. Unlike the US, Saddam Hussein has not learned that WMD have unacceptably gruesome results. It is right that he be forbidden from ever acquiring nuclear weapons. He has no inhibitions about using WMD. The world would be a safer place if Saddam never gets his hands on a nuclear bomb.
-
Marat Bedretdinov wrote: > the only man who has actually used weapons of mass > destruction in war How about US using WMD on Japan? History is a prostitute really What the original author was trying to say, but didn't say correctly was that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons fully knowing the gruesomeness effects. In WWI, Europeans originally thought chemical weapons were just another weapon until they started seeing the results on the battlefield. So gruesome was it, such weapons were banned. In WWII, the nuclear bomb was so ruinous that no nation since has ever used one in war. Saddam Hussein is dangerous because he has no inhibitions using WMD. He's used them in the past, and he won't hesitate to use them in the future.
-
About Venezuela, who his behind the current destabilization of Chavez ? It remembers Chile '73 :suss:
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
In this case, Chavez is behind the destabilization of Chavez. That, combined with deep political corruption that has stained Venezuela for years, has created a very volatile situation. Remember that Chavez pushing through a new constitution that gave him unprecendented powers. Based on my experience living in the country, the people voted for this out of desparation largely because of the history of corruption. Given the amount of oil in Venezuela, it should be a very wealthy country, but it isn't. Having said that, I was deeply dissapointed that Bush, and even ex-president Clinton, didn't condemn the attempted coup last year. Besides, it would be far better for the Americas to have a stable regime in Venezuela, regardless of who ran it, than an unstable one. (Nevertheless, trying to guess what idiots in the CIA will do is an almost hopeless task.) (Yes, the involvement of the CIA in Chile is shameful, though their involvment in Iran was arguably worse in the long run. Good essays on both: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Chile_CIAHits.html[^] http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html[^] Fortunately, Chile is recovering and is, by all accounts, a wonderful and open country. I hope the same for Iran.)
-
U.S. - Above ground open air tests to research the unknown. Iraqi - Secret research to recreate the known. Not exactly the same set of problems. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: Above ground open air tests to research the unknown. True enough for Los Alamos, but aboveground tests don't explain why everything around Rocky Flats and Oak Ridge is polluted and radioactive. There was no testing at any of these sites; only isotope enrichment and machining of bomb cores. When they cleaned out the ventilation ducts at Rocky Flats, they found about a critical mass of plutonium just in the air filters. Jonathan Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill
-
Maybe you should just read your own link again. The radiooactivity had nothing at all to do with uranium enrichment, but instead was the result of previous explosive tests... If you are going to post things like this and jump to rediculous conclusions, at least be accurate. :|
OldRob wrote: The radiooactivity had nothing at all to do with uranium enrichment, but instead was the result of previous explosive tests True enough, but Rocky Flats and Oak Ridge are well-contaminated from enrichment and machining of bomb cores, and there was never any testing at either site. Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill
-
Marat Bedretdinov wrote: > the only man who has actually used weapons of mass > destruction in war How about US using WMD on Japan? History is a prostitute really What the original author was trying to say, but didn't say correctly was that Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons fully knowing the gruesomeness effects. In WWI, Europeans originally thought chemical weapons were just another weapon until they started seeing the results on the battlefield. So gruesome was it, such weapons were banned. In WWII, the nuclear bomb was so ruinous that no nation since has ever used one in war. Saddam Hussein is dangerous because he has no inhibitions using WMD. He's used them in the past, and he won't hesitate to use them in the future.
Emcee Lam wrote: In WWI, Europeans originally thought chemical weapons were just another weapon until they started seeing the results on the battlefield :wtf: ! It's totally the opposite. Chemical weapons were created at first by germans because they could anhiliate any life for a cost very low (please refer to the notebook of a german soldier, Otto Vokmann, who explains that explosive costs 2,40 mark/kg, when Chlorinate costs only 18 pfennigs). At this moment of WW part I, the war became frankly terrorist and criminal: the target is no more to defeat the enemy, but to exterminate it like a rat. Emcee Lam wrote: So gruesome was it, such weapons were banned They weren't used during WW part II only because of the fear of retaliations, not because of morality.
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
-
What do you think about Kim Jong-il and its despotic reign in North Korea. Millions are starving there, he's making the same thing to his people than Pol-pot did in Cambodia: it can be considered as a genocide, as the starving in Ukraine in the 1930s. NK is definitely a much bigger threat than Iraq now, it actually may have A-bombs :omg:, and ICBM :wtf:!
I hurt so bad inside I wish you could see the world through my eyes It stays the same I just wanna laugh again
They're NEXT.
-
Tim Smith wrote: Above ground open air tests to research the unknown. True enough for Los Alamos, but aboveground tests don't explain why everything around Rocky Flats and Oak Ridge is polluted and radioactive. There was no testing at any of these sites; only isotope enrichment and machining of bomb cores. When they cleaned out the ventilation ducts at Rocky Flats, they found about a critical mass of plutonium just in the air filters. Jonathan Why couldn't Science, in the long run, serve As well as one's uncleared lunch-table or Mme X en Culottes de Matador? James Merrill
Jonathan Gilligan wrote: There was no testing at any of these sites; only isotope enrichment and machining of bomb cores. Nope the cores are not made or assembled there. There is a reason for the pollution but I'll let you look that up youself. Go back to about 1944 and work forward. 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