| Yes | 33% | 33% - 11 | ||||
| No | 60% | 60% - 20 | ||||
| Maybe (Explain) | 6% | 6% - 2 | ||||
| Total: 33 | ||||||
think of the only time nukes have actually been used, man. desperate my arse.Spark wrote:
That's a good point too. Nukes are the realm of the desperate.
North Korea, Pakistan and India could do anything, same for Israel and Iran really.Spark wrote:
I would bet my house that a nation-state will not attack with nuclear weapons against another nationstate in my life time or until we have large scale colonies in space. Whichever comes first.Kmar wrote:
Even when politician gaffe and seemingly allude to the use of nukes it's a major story here.Spark wrote:
Didn't you get the memo Kmar? Anything the US does is evil, for no reason than other than it's the US doing it.
The implication of using nuclear weapons is sort of taboo. The most recent story I can remember is when Hillary said that if Iran nuked Israel we'd obliterate Iran. People somehow took that as she was warning of a first strike against Iran.
Shahter wrote:
think of the only time nukes have actually been used, man. desperate my arse.Spark wrote:
That's a good point too. Nukes are the realm of the desperate.
Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
remind me when was the last time they've been held accountable for anything?Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
Nixon and watergate comes to mind ...Shahter wrote:
remind me when was the last time they've been held accountable for anything?Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
yeah, and klinton. lol.Varegg wrote:
Nixon and watergate comes to mind ...Shahter wrote:
remind me when was the last time they've been held accountable for anything?Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-05-19 02:16:04)
I don't buy it. MAD is just as applicable to them. There would be a shitstorm on any country that launched a first strike. Keep in mind the appearance of being willing to use them is a strategic maneuver. This despite whether or not they would. In fact, that's the major reason for acquiring nukes. ..a deterrent.Dilbert_X wrote:
North Korea, Pakistan and India could do anything, same for Israel and Iran really.Spark wrote:
I would bet my house that a nation-state will not attack with nuclear weapons against another nationstate in my life time or until we have large scale colonies in space. Whichever comes first.Kmar wrote:
Even when politician gaffe and seemingly allude to the use of nukes it's a major story here.
The implication of using nuclear weapons is sort of taboo. The most recent story I can remember is when Hillary said that if Iran nuked Israel we'd obliterate Iran. People somehow took that as she was warning of a first strike against Iran.
If Israel were facing a conventional defeat they might well go nuclear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
Everytime there is an election.Shahter wrote:
remind me when was the last time they've been held accountable for anything?Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
Does Kim Jong Il give a toss about his country? I reckon not.Kmar wrote:
I don't buy it. MAD is just as applicable to them. There would be a shitstorm on any country that launched a first strike. Keep in mind the appearance of being willing to use them is a strategic maneuver. This despite whether or not they would. In fact, that's the major reason for acquiring nukes. ..a deterrent.
He does in so much as it provides him with unquestionable power. Even the self serving are subject to annihilation.Dilbert_X wrote:
Does Kim Jong Il give a toss about his country? I reckon not.Kmar wrote:
I don't buy it. MAD is just as applicable to them. There would be a shitstorm on any country that launched a first strike. Keep in mind the appearance of being willing to use them is a strategic maneuver. This despite whether or not they would. In fact, that's the major reason for acquiring nukes. ..a deterrent.
yeah. if they manage to keep ratings of the dudes that are already there high, they keep them. if not, they have other dudes run for it.Kmar wrote:
Everytime there is an election.Shahter wrote:
remind me when was the last time they've been held accountable for anything?Kmar wrote:
It's safe to say what we (the public in general) know about nuclear weapons now, and what we knew then is very different. The US leaders would have to answer to quite a bit more present day. They'd be held accountable.
usa has been known to do just that, russia and many others as well - and all those had nuclear weapons for very very long time already. how many terrorists have got their hands on nukes yet?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Iran is widely regarded as funding, supplying and training "terrorist" militias in the surrounding area.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-05-19 05:37:01)
Or the Israelis could stop being dicks.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Lol imagine if Hammas had nukes.
Actually thats what concerns me the most, Iran is widely regarded as funding, supplying and training "terrorist" militias in the surrounding area. It would only need one sympathizer to get close enough to the nuclear tech and we could have all sorts of fun and games. In fact while im on this slippery slope im going to suggest that when Iran goes nuclear it will only be a matter of time before Israel gets nuked. Best bet to avoid that would be some sort Iranian revolution to have a less radical elite.
I would argue that the militias USA chooses to arm do not often attack the civilian populace.Shahter wrote:
usa has been known to do just that, russia and many others as well - and all those had nuclear weapons for very very long time already. how many terrorists have got their hands on nukes yet?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Iran is widely regarded as funding, supplying and training "terrorist" militias in the surrounding area.
/facepalmCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would argue that the militias USA chooses to arm do not often attack the civilian populace.Shahter wrote:
usa has been known to do just that, russia and many others as well - and all those had nuclear weapons for very very long time already. how many terrorists have got their hands on nukes yet?Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Iran is widely regarded as funding, supplying and training "terrorist" militias in the surrounding area.
Um okay then. In that case why dont we just sell nuclear tech to Iran and the rest of the world? We could make an absolute fortune.Shahter wrote:
/facepalmCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would argue that the militias USA chooses to arm do not often attack the civilian populace.Shahter wrote:
usa has been known to do just that, russia and many others as well - and all those had nuclear weapons for very very long time already. how many terrorists have got their hands on nukes yet?
the same reason nobody else would - you aren't insane.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Um okay then. In that case why dont we just sell nuclear tech to Iran and the rest of the world? We could make an absolute fortune.Shahter wrote:
/facepalmCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I would argue that the militias USA chooses to arm do not often attack the civilian populace.
So the argument is that any country developing nuclear capability can be no worse than those that have it at the moment? Yet it would be insane to help them along the way.Shahter wrote:
the same reason nobody else would - you aren't insane.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Um okay then. In that case why dont we just sell nuclear tech to Iran and the rest of the world? We could make an absolute fortune.Shahter wrote:
/facepalm
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-19 06:18:46)
