India test-fires short range nuclear missile
-
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Good news for nuke fanatics :confused: are you actually pro this whole thing Nish? Are you serious? My god... regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
Paul I have my own little theory that the one sure way to bring about world peace is to have "nukes for all". What I mean is right now only certain big shots have nuclear weapons. If everyone, I mean everyone, had nuclear weapons, then everyone would be able to destroy everyone else. Thus all would be equal. Thus the US wont be able to dictate terms. And enemy-country-pairs like India/Pak, Iran/Iraq etc. will not attack each other etc. Of course there is always the danger that some crazy religious fundamentalist would decide that it's time to blow up the earth and the moon with it. So before we have nukes for all, we should abandon religious politics. No country should adhere to any religion. No more Hinduism. No Christianity. No Buddhism or Islam. Just one religion. "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" Once we are all one, we can reach for the stars... Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
-
Oh Boy! Colin, you know more about India than I seem to do. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
Nish [BusterBoy] wrote: Colin, you know more about India than I seem to do. Nish whilst I can't code for crud, I freely admit to knowledge of History, Geography and Int Politics. :-) We all have to be usful at something mate. :-) Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Paul Watson wrote: are you actually pro this whole thing Nish? Are you serious? I think he is, and he should be. Until the US (lets face it, if it'll be anyone it will be them) invents a nanite defuser*, every country in the world needs to have a credible nuclear defence system. (note: defence, not offence). The idea being that it will deter anybody else with an ounce of commonsense from attacking them. Of course though, as recent events have shown, not everyone has this sense. * have I been playing Call To Power II for too long? ;) ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group, there was less competition there" - Gandhi
David Wulff wrote: I think he is, and he should be. Until the US (lets face it, if it'll be anyone it will be them) invents a nanite defuser*, every country in the world needs to have a credible nuclear defence system. (note: defence, not offence). The idea being that it will deter anybody else with an ounce of commonsense from attacking them. Of course though, as recent events have shown, not everyone has this sense. *scratches my head* Firstly India was testing a nuclear payload delivery missile, not an anti-nuke-missile system. Secondly anyone who believes what Nish spoke about ("Nukes for all") should be shipped to Pluto with all the other crazies, given all the nukes and then we can see if their theory holds up. If it does, great, Pluto and the crazies live on. But if it doesn't then the rest of us can carry on with life as Pluto becomes a new asteroid belt. I know I am taking this extreme but if Nukes For All is a good thing then what about Guns For All or Anthrax For All. It is not the average country we should be worrying about, it is the lunatic fringe who will launch what they have not caring if ten minutes later they are annihalated. Plus India and Pakistan are not that stable, one coupe, one nutter rising to power and blam, no more Indian, no more Pakistan, no more Southern Asia. Over 1 billion people dead or dying. Wonderful idea that, Nukes For All!!! :mad: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
-
LOL I don't think you understand nuclear fusion roger. A country with sufficient nuclear capabilities can actually set up a nuclear bomb within it's mainland which will blow up a good portion of the the earth as well as set a radiation storm so fierce that life of any kind will cease to exist anywhere on the planet, even the very bottoms of the deep deep oceans would be devoid of life. Earth would be dead. Nish Sonork ID 100.9786 voidmain www.busterboy.org If you don't find me on CP, I'll be at Bob's HungOut
I assure you that I understand it very well:laugh: And as much as I hate working for peanuts for the rest of my life, I am delighted that the reason my career ended was that we didn't need the damned things anymore! I still keep a copy of the letter from then SecDef Dick Cheney directing us to stand down our active wings and cancel development of everything I was working on. To me, it was a historic moment; never would any child of mine have to grow up living in fear as we did. Sadly, the nature of the beast is such that any loon with an ax to grind can figure out how to make and use one. They're not conceptually difficult, and a significant amount of weapons-grade fissionable material is known to be unaccounted for... That scares me still...
-
David Wulff wrote: I think he is, and he should be. Until the US (lets face it, if it'll be anyone it will be them) invents a nanite defuser*, every country in the world needs to have a credible nuclear defence system. (note: defence, not offence). The idea being that it will deter anybody else with an ounce of commonsense from attacking them. Of course though, as recent events have shown, not everyone has this sense. *scratches my head* Firstly India was testing a nuclear payload delivery missile, not an anti-nuke-missile system. Secondly anyone who believes what Nish spoke about ("Nukes for all") should be shipped to Pluto with all the other crazies, given all the nukes and then we can see if their theory holds up. If it does, great, Pluto and the crazies live on. But if it doesn't then the rest of us can carry on with life as Pluto becomes a new asteroid belt. I know I am taking this extreme but if Nukes For All is a good thing then what about Guns For All or Anthrax For All. It is not the average country we should be worrying about, it is the lunatic fringe who will launch what they have not caring if ten minutes later they are annihalated. Plus India and Pakistan are not that stable, one coupe, one nutter rising to power and blam, no more Indian, no more Pakistan, no more Southern Asia. Over 1 billion people dead or dying. Wonderful idea that, Nukes For All!!! :mad: regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront
I think you are missing my fundamental point here. It's not that "nukes for all" is a good thing, it's that sadly it is a necessary thing. No world power, be it the United States, Britain, India, or even Afghanistan, should be denied the right to defend themselves against attack from modern weapons of mass destruction. You mentioned that they are not building a nuclear defence system, but I get to differ that they are. If you are about to use force to attack a country you would think twice about using nukes if they had the ability to do the same to you. It's the very same reason Nobel sought to invent dynamite, though his vision has become limited with time. It's about prevention through deterrent, not through physical force. Kind of like Policemen carrying *really big* guns deter criminals. It's a sad state of affairs for sure, but every human being has the right to defend themselves, and if that means making sure you have the same sized fists as the net guy, then so be it. Remember - this works both ways round. Nuclear weapons used in warfare are very much an end-all clause. If any power uses them, they can be safely assured they will be eliminated off the face of this planet by other's, maybe not by using nuclear weaponry, but it would happen. I'm all for nuclear disarmament, but the only way this can be achieved is one of two things: (1) all the powers in the world, whether country or cult, agree to disarm their warheads and the base materials are put to a better use, or (2), some form of system is created that will render all nuclear warheads useless (i.e. CTP2's "nanite diffuser"). (1) is not going to happen - ever. It is, unfortunately, not the way we work. (2) could happen, but we are not there yet. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group, there was less competition there" - Gandhi
-
I think you are missing my fundamental point here. It's not that "nukes for all" is a good thing, it's that sadly it is a necessary thing. No world power, be it the United States, Britain, India, or even Afghanistan, should be denied the right to defend themselves against attack from modern weapons of mass destruction. You mentioned that they are not building a nuclear defence system, but I get to differ that they are. If you are about to use force to attack a country you would think twice about using nukes if they had the ability to do the same to you. It's the very same reason Nobel sought to invent dynamite, though his vision has become limited with time. It's about prevention through deterrent, not through physical force. Kind of like Policemen carrying *really big* guns deter criminals. It's a sad state of affairs for sure, but every human being has the right to defend themselves, and if that means making sure you have the same sized fists as the net guy, then so be it. Remember - this works both ways round. Nuclear weapons used in warfare are very much an end-all clause. If any power uses them, they can be safely assured they will be eliminated off the face of this planet by other's, maybe not by using nuclear weaponry, but it would happen. I'm all for nuclear disarmament, but the only way this can be achieved is one of two things: (1) all the powers in the world, whether country or cult, agree to disarm their warheads and the base materials are put to a better use, or (2), some form of system is created that will render all nuclear warheads useless (i.e. CTP2's "nanite diffuser"). (1) is not going to happen - ever. It is, unfortunately, not the way we work. (2) could happen, but we are not there yet. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group, there was less competition there" - Gandhi
David Wulff wrote: I think you are missing my fundamental point here I get your point David and I think everyone has heard it a million times from all walks of life. The problem is that it should not be this way. It is not a "good" way of keeping the peace. Idealy, you should not have to have a bigger or equal gun to stop the "enemy" from attacking you. There was a thread earlier about Respect and this comes into play. India and Pakistan only have respect for each other because either could wipe the other out quite easily. It is a respect born of fear. It is a terrible, and fragile, respect. Also this whole "Nukes for all" arguement has a bit of a loophole. Only a few countries actually do have nukes. So how come all the other countries still exist and survive/prosper? Why aren't they being assimilated by the nuke-toting countries? South Africa has nukes, we have always wanted Lesotho (who don't have nukes) and yet they still remain independant and free. WE even bloody invaded them in 1999, but for some or other reason it all ended badly (as invasions are want to do) and they remain free. I just think it is plain wrong, a terribl way to live and that we are all actually fooling ourselves. Other countries do not invade America just because it has the greatest military might. Oh no, they don't invade America because if they did the world economy would collapse and the people invading would find their coffers empty as they rely on the American market to thrive, no matter how much they hate it. David Wulff wrote: (2) could happen, but we are not there yet. The problem with (2) is that as soon as Nukes are rendered useless someone will go and invent something a step worse. Something nanites cannot defuse. And the race will start up all over again. Hey David, the more you think about humanity, the more you think "we have survived how long?!?!?! amazing!" regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge Martin Marvinski wrote: Unfortunatly Deep Throat isn't my cup of tea Do you Sonork? I do! 100.9903 Stormfront