Thrawn's Revenge
Off Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Isamu on March 18, 2008, 12:19:47 AM
-
What do you think about the nuclear and hydrogen bombs? there are many types ranging from bunker busters to tactical to full blown anti city and possibly even a planet killer. do you think we have the right to use them on other countries? is using them in space as bad as using them on the ground. basically just discuss your feelings. if this turns into a debate thats okay. i have included some vids to portray what we are discussing. i suggest you watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5867201412148088115 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5867201412148088115)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk (http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TfsWBgfpznk&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=TfsWBgfpznk&feature=related)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2203295298222048083&q=nuke&total=12540&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2203295298222048083&q=nuke&total=12540&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2)
-
I support nukes. They're the reason Cold War never escalated in to a WWIII. Neither side wanted to be blamed for using them first and both were afraid of attacking with regular methods as they were afraid of retaliation. So they're done more good than harm. And I think that country having few nukes is the best to way protect itself.
-
I dont agree with nuclear weapons. There is no need for such hugely destructive weapons.
Here are some quotes from a favourite TV series of mine, Yes (Prime) Minster:
On nuclear deterrent:
Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.
On nuclear weapons:
Sir Humphrey: Don't you believe that Great Britain should have the best?
Jim Hacker: Yes, of course.
Sir Humphrey: Very well, if you walked into a nuclear missile showroom you would buy Trident - it's lovely, it's elegant, it's beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Ch
-
yes there is. when many country has those it prevents one country from becoming too powerful. it also prevents massive, large scale wars. nobody wants to go to war with the possibility of nuclear weapons being used. it's the last resort. And always remember that in nuclear war there are no winners. just like it says on DEFCON.
-
if no-one has nuclear weapons, no-one is too powerful then, either.
How close did the Cold War come to becoming a real war, waged with nuclear weapons?
So, if there are no winners with having nuclear weapons, they are just a waste of money.
-
without nuclear weapons I guess USA would try to conguer the world. but now they can't. that's just an example of course. I'm not accusing USA of conguering the world or even thinking it.
Well at the time of Cuban crisis it was very near.
and at the moment the nuclear weapons are like expensive paperweights. that can kill thousands of people.
-
we owe ouur lives to nukes.
at the same time, they take lives away.
and meyer, any country that becomes too powerful will have nukes.
by your logic, we should nuke the usa.
it is not just to get rid of a threa by absolutely destroying its population, and damning it to an inhospitable wasteland for the next thousand years or so.
interestingly, i support nuclear power, though.
nukes should never be fired. the human cost is too great.
-
my logic doesn't say that destroy USA. I'd like to know where you got that idea. and my point is that when there are many countries with nukes none can become too powerful.
-
Not every country has nukes, and you could always have an accidental launching, or have a complete madman/retard in charge of a country with the ability (or almost have the ability) to make them that IS willing to launch them. During Suez, Russia almost nuked London and Paris over a single canal.
-
I don't support nuclear weapons on an emotional level, but, intellectually, I have to admit that it does make it harder for someone else to launch one at you.
-
For now, im in support, I mean, they did stop WWIII, so for now im good with them.
-
Alot more people would have died at Japan, if we hadn't used them. Here are some reasons: a siege (starvation, etc.), other types of bombings, and all sorts of crossfire during an invasion. It would have become like France, desolated. We had to show them we mean business.
I support nukes. They're the reason Cold War never escalated in to a WWIII. Neither side wanted to be blamed for using them first and both were afraid of attacking with regular methods as they were afraid of retaliation. So they're done more good than harm. And I think that country having few nukes is the best to way protect itself.
I wouldn't say that. Maybe now we would be, but not back then. We didn't know the full effect, but the other part is right.
without nuclear weapons I guess USA would try to conguer the world. but now they can't. that's just an example of course. I'm not accusing USA of conguering the world or even thinking it.
Not to say that you are, but if we wanted to conquer the world we could have done it. We, unlike everyone have nuclear missile defense weapons, as far as I know. But that is not to say we can defend against every method. We have a huge navy and the most advanced military. Now I am not saying we should, but we would be the most likely to, if everyone had a chance.
-
Not every country has nukes, and you could always have an accidental launching, or have a complete madman/retard in charge of a country with the ability (or almost have the ability) to make them that IS willing to launch them. During Suez, Russia almost nuked London and Paris over a single canal.
i was talking to one of my teachers today who served in the military during the cold war. there were over a dozen times where the books said that soviet commanders should have launched their missiles but decided not too only later to find out that it was infact a false alarm that nearly triggered a thermonuclear war.
-
And theres also the incident where the Russian missle silo's computer malfunctioned at the silo doors opened and the missle was ready for launch, without orders
-
And the incident where Americans elected
Al Gore George Bush. He is insanely fascinated by the big red button....
-
When has he said he has ever considered launching a WMD?
-
I'm not saying he has, but that shiny launch button must be awfully tempting.
-
When has he said he has ever considered launching a WMD?
he hasnt but its bush... he was probably about to launch one at iraq before people told him that wouldn't work... im american and im embarrased that hes our president. also our navy is only the most advanced now, it doesnt have that much size, however the tech. is good enough that we can kick any other navy's ass.
back on point, im not sure we need as many nukes as we have, there are enough in existance that we could end all life on earth however their use in WWII i agree with because the japaneese were going to fight until they were all dead.
-
I agree, maybe so many nukes over does it, but we might need them.
-
we might need them.
to do what, kill everyone on earth? idk i think its a waste of resources, the uranium should be used in power plants.
-
or maybe to fight an intersteller war if that ever does happen. there is the possibility that bush used tactical nukes in iraq but no one can be sure because we have weapons that appear to be nukes and the radiation would scatter too quickly to be known.
-
or maybe to fight an intersteller war if that ever does happen.
maybe, i have a feeling that nukes wouldn't be very useful against a species that is capable of interstellar travel (like in independence day).
-
i believe otherwise. most people don't account the massive emp that eminates from a nuclear bomb explosion. at least the ships would be dead in space or something.
-
If they are capable of interstellar travel, i think they understand the basics of nuclear physics and know about emp emission.....
-
okay well nothing could stand up to thousands of nuclear detonations.
-
This is fun. ;D
-
I have to point out to our American nationalists that your precious missile defense system is never tested. you don't know if it really works. And I doubt it can handle thousands of missiles within minutes. And a nuke doesn't have to hit it's target to do damage. if a missile is destroyed while in flight it still causes nuclear waste and other hazardous things that are devastating.
And yes this is fun. And you know what would be even more fun? Watching nuclear war from your own telly. Now that would be fun. ;D ;D ;D
-
Also, the US Army couldnt take over the world. It is struggling with two small conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so trying anything larger would be doomed to failure.
Oh, and while the US Navy is the largest individual navy, the combined navies of those countries opposed to an American world conquest attempt would greatly outnumber it.
-
yes good point. USA army has troubles to bring peace in Iraq so I think that shows that your world conguest would be doomed from the beginning. Hell China and India can just send waves after waves of man against your troops. And eventually they would win. and if you would use nukes they would retaliate. And even all your nukes and missile defense systems wouldn't save you then.
-
the only possible practical beneficial use for a nuke is to intercept an asteroid on a collision course with earth.
-
Also, the US Army couldnt take over the world. It is struggling with two small conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, so trying anything larger would be doomed to failure.
Oh, and while the US Navy is the largest individual navy, the combined navies of those countries opposed to an American world conquest attempt would greatly outnumber it.
the american army is facing guerillas. no army is good at fighting that. and americans have no reason to try anything bigger since we are the most powerful nation on earth. anyways, a world government in my opinion would not work economically because all nations depend on foreign trade. also, I have a hard time believing america would use citykillers to conquer the world.
-
US defense forces are the most potent fighting force in the world when fighting conventionally. You cant exactly use gunships to take out a couple terrorists within an allied city
-
that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.
-
the american army is facing guerillas. no army is good at fighting that. and americans have no reason to try anything bigger since we are the most powerful nation on earth. anyways, a world government in my opinion would not work economically because all nations depend on foreign trade. also, I have a hard time believing america would use citykillers to conquer the world.
The most powerful nation? With an economy on the verge of recession, fighting wars that it cant win, that tries to bully other nations and has a collective strop when it doesnt get its own way?
-
That is weird. I mean that after all that is said that us is the most powerful and it can't even pacify a small nation and it's guerrilla warrior I think that says it all.
-
the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.
-
iraq is a weak fledgling government. although i too am anti-iraq war, i believe the war to be a stalemate.
-
the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.
What military is there to be crushed? You're glorious army is being shamed by civilians!
-
that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.
france wasn't the only country with partisan activity
-
the reason america is losing in iraq is because we are trying to help them rebuild. If we didn't care anout a country and they pissed us off too much theyd be screwd. even without nukes, we would crush their military and leave. no rebuilding process.just go in, blow stuff up and let them fend for themselves.
What military is there to be crushed? You're glorious army is being shamed by civilians!
im not saying in iraq, iraq is a disaster. im saying that if a country like france/UK/Germany/Spain/Canada pissed off the U.S. they would get their asses handed to them. we could destroy everything essentially turning any country back to a third world country. the problem with this is that the rest of the world would get pissed off and it would be ethicless. im just saying our military is capable of it tho.
-
that's the point. You can't just suppose that the enemy surrenders after you take out the regular army. didn't learn anything from the WWII? La Resistance? rings any bells? If you think that fighting ends when you have conquered the country you are even more stupid than I thought. Conventional war. bah! you sound like british about the boer wars. I don't remember who it was who said that it was unfair of the boers to do surprise attacks and then retreat. They should have just stand in line and wait the british to shoot. them. So face it. USA isn't so powerful after all. you can defend yourself well. but you can't bring order to areas you have conquered. maybe you just should nuke anyone you don't like.
No meyer, you're obviously more stupid than i thought, which almost seems impossible at this point. Who cares about bringing order? Once the regular army is taken out, which is quite possible, its then just a policing operation. Did I ever suggest in my post killing the army kills the fighting? No, I didn't. You sir, need to stop blowing up and insulting people every fucking time someone says something you don't agree with.
Anywayz, off-topic and locked