- #1
KonradKorzenowski
- 28
- 0
join in a fight against nuclear weapons. as a weapons analyst i have years of experience in the field of nuclear reseach. please join the cause
4Newton said:You can see what is taking place in this country when Bush took action to prevent proliferation of WMD.
I do not understand what a “neutral, international level” is. It would help if you could state any actions that can be taken, other then the present ones, that will change the condition that is leading to nuclear conflict. Who are you going to talk to or with at this “neutral, international level” that can make any changes in the present mindset of the people of the Middle East.
If you don't take out the bad guys first, they will take you out eventually. That's the jungle of the current situation of humanity.
If you don't take out the bad guys first, they will take you out eventually. That's the jungle of the current situation of humanity.
4Newton said:The problems of the Middle East have nothing to do with anyone’s policy. This is a natural evolution of all societies. Histories of western civilization can be used to follow the progress of the Middle East.
ophecleide said:4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.
ophecleide said:5.The reason why you feel that we have to go out and kill bad guys before they kill us is because they are either thinking exactly the same thing you are, or thinking that you owe them something morally (as most of us felt after 9/11).
ophecleide said:7.The League of Nations/WWII to UN/WWIII analogy is weak, don't use it without further justification, please.
Those who don't think Sadaam and his sons and the others like them in all areas of the world are the bad guys, then you are living in a dream world.
4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.
selfAdjoint said:But not all Islamic countries, just by virtue of being Islamic, are comparable to the Hussain boys. You can't just demonize innocent people because it suits your policy.
6.I have a hard time believing that the reason why the US government works is because the founding fathers had power flowing from God. You chould really explain that better (I'm curious).
ophecleide said:I hate reading really lengthy posts, so I'll try to keep this one brief.
4.Iraq was not about preventing the spreading of nuclear weapons. Please tell me why you think it was.
ophecleide said:I also need to point out to juju that "weak analogy" was supposed to be a nice way of saying "invalid analogy". You still have not shown why WWII politics can be applied today. I agree there are similarities, but similarities alone do not valididate an analogy.
ophecleide said:Finally, juju just told me that because Saddam is a mean guy, the war in Iraq is about nuclear weapons. That's illogical.
ophecleide said:It's interesting that you (Morbius) only quote one person and tell me to read a book written by one other person. Whether they could acquire nuclear weapons or not, there still isn't any proof that they were. Moreover, the evidence compiled by the CIA suggests that the weapons program Saddam had before the first Gulf War was essentially destroyed (http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/) and that he was not actively restoring the program or even had any actual plans to do so (although he did want to, had the intent to, and may have done so given the opportunity). Is this evidence enough to justify an invasion? Perhaps, but in my opinion, no. The point is that invasion would only be necessary if we knew that he did have WMDs or that he was actively producing them and we were unable to stop it without force..
russ_watters said:Morbius - question for you: have you read "The Sum of All fears?" Essentiallly, the gist is that a well-funded/connected terrorist succeeds in a matter of a year or so, in re-engineering a lost Israeli tactical nuclear weapon into a functional h-bomb. Do you think such a scenario is possible?
Good to know its not something that can be done quite so easily. He said in the forward or afterward that he made most of the details as accurate as he could, but purposely changed a few so it would be less correct (to salve his conscience).Morbius said:Russ,
NO - the engineering and physics of thermonuclear weapons is one of the
most complex scientific challenges. That's why Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore have always had the most powerful computers.
I read "Sum of All Fears" many years ago. I remember Clancy's
description of the components of the bomb. I kept wondering - "how is
this thing going to work?"
That may be the neatest chapter in any book I've ever read - 10 pages describing events that happen in a few microseconds. No wonder his books are so long!I'm glad he included the chapter "8 Shakes" [ if memory serves - 8 is the
number - maybe something else] which describes how the device works.
russ_watters said:Good to know its not something that can be done quite so easily.