posted
On a slightly tangential line of thought, the United States IS the only country that has ever used not just one, but TWO atomic bombs on another. Maybe your new missile defense should point inward to protect the rest of the world from yourselves Just saying...
------------------ "The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything
posted
Ignorant, arrogant, and armed to the teeth..... We'ins is happy here in da Ewe-Knighted Staits.....
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them
"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV
[This message has been edited by Ritten (edited May 02, 2001).]
posted
And therefore iradiates the atmosphere of the planet even more. It's not about stopping nukes when they're launched, it's preventing their launch. If the US just blocks all incoming missiles and the world is irradiated, how long do they think they're gonna live?
------------------ "Well if it's gonna be that kind of a party, I'm putting my dick in the mashed potatoes!"
posted
As I haven't taken physics yet and my knowledge seems to be sorely limited, I have a question.
If you blow up a nuclear warhead en route, does the bomb itself actually go off, or do the reactant materials simply get pulverized and blown all over the place?
------------------ "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism."
posted
Actually, from my admittedly sketchy knowledge. Blowing up a nuclear missile en-route shouldn't be that bad (relatively). All you're doing is scattering the radioactive material across the landscape, but I'm pretty sure that unless you were really "unlucky" you probably wouldn't set off the explosive charges...just right... that push the two halfs of the mass together and having the thing go nuclear. (Right? Some help here?) But if you just blew up the missile with another nuclear missile, its a moot point, thats why the "new" ideas use lasers and kinetic tech.
------------------ "The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything
posted
Nah, it's theoretically impossible to set off a nuclear bomb accidently. Now admittedly, the nuclear material scattering over the landscape wouldn't be all that good, but it'd be better than the complete destruction of L.A. 'Course, that'd be a close call. Wouldn't we all be better off without Rosie O'Donnel?
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 *** Card-Carrying Member of the FlareAPAO *** "I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.
------------------ "How do you define fool?" "I don't attempt it. I wait for demonstrations. They inevitably surpass my imagination." - CJ Cherryh, Invader
posted
*shrug* It would be worth it. Besides, they've finished filming Voyager. They could film Series 5 and ST X somewhere else...
------------------ "The Guide says that there is an art to flying...or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Life, the Universe and Everything
posted
I'm not so sure about an anti-missle defence. There is a larger chance of terrorists ramming a nuclear weapon up our asses by puting it in a boat and sailing it into New York harbor or something like that. Let's face it! Should we come under attack, I'd be willing to bet money on the fact the these weapons of mass desruction would be delivered via more discrete methods. As a matter of fact, I'm not so sure of the probibility of anyone launching ICBMs against us. The republicans said a missle defence system would protect us from an "accedental launch," but the odds of that happening are GIGANTIC! They even compared an accedental launch of an ICBM to the Kursk, and Greenville submarine accedents. Excuse me, but lauching nuclear missles by accedent and hitting a fishing vessel by accedent are two different things. Who would nuke us though? Other than psycho terrorists. China is more interested in taking control of territories and territory won't be any good to them if it's glowing in the dark. Russia can't doesn't have the cash to go to war with us, and India and Pakistan are more interested in nukeing each other. I don't know. Maybe a missle defence system really is something we need, but I'm not totally convinced we do need it
------------------ "We have to get drunk immediately."----Gattaca
quote:I think they should have continued with the disarmament, it could only have meant a better future for everyone. At the same time, though, when countries like China, India, and Pakistan start testing nuclear bombs I can see where Bush is coming from, even if I disagree.
Now Gurgy old chap, I guess that nobody but uncle sam has the right to nukes huh? Also you seem to be under the impression that nukes are new to these nations. Each one of them has had nuclear weapons for at least 25 years. But yes, they're obiviously evil.
On a side note how can you place a democratic nation like India in the same group an dictatorships like China & Pakistan? Please explain...
posted
First mentioned that the USA were continuing with the Start II treaty so that's something, at least.
Daryus: My point was not that the US is the only country allowed to have nukes, but that I could understand Bush's concern. And India IS a major concern. They may not be a dictatorship, but we all saw the aggressive behaviour between India and Pakistan last summer. Democracy or no, they're still dangerous.
------------------ "If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen" Samuel Adams
posted
India and Pakistan have NOT had nuclear weaponry for 25 years!
And even if it's only each other that they succeed in nuking, then that'll be a good proportion of the world's population fucked, from the dead millions in Pakistan and India, and the irradiated survivors there, to the Chinese, Bangladeshis, etc. that have a border with either of these two. Fallout's a bitch, kids. Stay in school.
------------------ At that point, McDonald fired his gun three times in the air to emphasize his point. The crowd, estimated at 350,000, loudly cheered the new candidate.
"Let me make this clear: I am the law! I am your ruler! And you will have fries with that, motherf*cker!"
Printer-friendly view of this topic
