No, what YOU mean is that Enrico Fermi made the first sustainable nuclear reactor before anyone else at the University of Chicago, and that the first nuclear weapon was developed and tested by the US in the US. You also mean that the Russians and Brits (and by extension everyone else except for India, who developed it on their own despite resistance from the United States) got their model for a fission device from the United States. By that logic, it should be just us and India, right?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
No, what you mean is we took the scientists that developed it.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
What I would say is, America should have it, they invented it.
The US claims to not want other countries to develop nuclear weapons, yet it would only cost $10 Billion to remove the element needed for the device.
North Korea, despite what many think from Fox news, would never actually use the nukes, they would do what they did do, make a big scene of it, and then say they will stop in exchange for financial and economic aid(basically they were sane terrorists and the UN negotiated with them)
on the other hand
Iran has a leader with no regard for human lives (as seen in the Iraqi invasion of Iran where he sent waves of boys as meat shields/fodder); so a nuclear detonation and retaliation against his forces wouldn't be a serious impact on his forces.
North Korea, despite what many think from Fox news, would never actually use the nukes, they would do what they did do, make a big scene of it, and then say they will stop in exchange for financial and economic aid(basically they were sane terrorists and the UN negotiated with them)
on the other hand
Iran has a leader with no regard for human lives (as seen in the Iraqi invasion of Iran where he sent waves of boys as meat shields/fodder); so a nuclear detonation and retaliation against his forces wouldn't be a serious impact on his forces.
True... That's why I believe Iran is interested in nukes. I don't have a problem with them having nukes (or Scandinavian countries having them either), but I do have a problem with them taking British soldiers captive for their own nefarious purposes.cMD-RR wrote:
But if Iran want the nukes to defend themselfes to an american invasion?
ok, will go to sleep now, work tomorrow, happy weekend.
Somebody needs to take Iran down a notch. Maybe capping the Ayatollah in the head will do the trick.
No.Turquoise wrote:
Maybe capping the Ayatollah in the head will do the trick.
Last edited by التعريفات (2007-03-30 17:59:41)
Survey Says... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=60954
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-03-30 18:00:11)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Legal? If they've signed the NPT then no. Although a number of NATO countries have american nukes "on loan"...nuclear proliferation is greater than most people realise.
Iran? Unless they properly withdraw from the NPT then no.
Iran? Unless they properly withdraw from the NPT then no.
All I hear is 'waa waa waa liberals'.Dezerteagal5 wrote:
I dont like any country besides us having nukes. Because a lot of countries, are ran by crazy ass people (cough south korea cough) who dont realize that a nuclear war would be the end of the world. Its not just a big boom, its years of radiation and dust blocking out the sun...
NOW HERE THIS!
If the stupid stupid stupid idiot liberals didnt vote against Mr. Ronald Reagans "strategic air defence" system that he proposed 25 years ago, we would have a fully complete, fully paid for, high tech satalite flying over the US looking out for nuclear missles shot at the USA, and would intecept them if they were detected!!!!!!
BRILLIANT IDEA YOU SAY!!! YES!!!!!!
But no "We dont want to bring nukes to space" Oh and "We dont want to have SPACE WARS" said the liberals...
I sure as fuck know i would feel a lot safer with a satalite tracking missles heading towards the US...
Err.... Im trying to behave myself in the DST section....
Seriously... it's like you guys can't actually think for yourselves. Just blame everything on liberals, and it'll be fine.
At least get rid of the nukes you're not going to use. You don't need thousands upon thousands. A few hundred is a good enough deterrent.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
And the thread ends with that. Or at least should have.cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Actually yes, since I would doubt those nations selling their weapons to terrorists.cMD-RR wrote:
It seems that nobody want Iran to have nukes ,but what would you think if for an example Norway, Sweden or Belgium got nukes.
Is it more legal for them to get the bombs than Iran?
Discuss.
superman was created as wwII propaganda. he'll only help the us causeBraddock wrote:
I'd rather no one had nukes but I see a lot of hypocrisy in one nation being allowed nukes over another because they're the 'goodies'. I see even more hypocrisy in the one nation that's ever used them going around the world telling everyone else they're not allowed to acquire them.
We need Superman to come and round them all up and dump them out in space.
I'll tell you what... If we let you cap our president in the head, you can let us cap the Ayatollah.التعريفات wrote:
No.Turquoise wrote:
Maybe capping the Ayatollah in the head will do the trick.
Let's face it... they're both shitty leaders that need to be removed....
Last edited by Turquoise (2007-03-30 18:46:56)
This is a very difficult question : - on the one side I wish no - one had any nukes, and that includes america, but on the other side why should certain countries believe that they are special and only they should be allowed nukes.
The one thing I am sure of however is that I don't ever wish nukes to fall into the hands of anyone who believes it is rational to kill yourself for a cause. Fanatacisim is one of the ugliest and most stupid of all human failings,
The one thing I am sure of however is that I don't ever wish nukes to fall into the hands of anyone who believes it is rational to kill yourself for a cause. Fanatacisim is one of the ugliest and most stupid of all human failings,
Hypocritical yes. But also to draw the same moral equivalence in reasoning if one leader can have nukes everyone should is a bit misguided as well.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I trust sweden , norway, and belgium WAY WAY WAY WAY more than i trust IrancMD-RR wrote:
It seems that nobody want Iran to have nukes ,but what would you think if for an example Norway, Sweden or Belgium got nukes.
Is it more legal for them to get the bombs than Iran?
Discuss.
I think we should think more about logic and common sense than just fairness.
If it's fair for anyone to have nukes it's also fair when they use those nukes against you.
If it's fair for anyone to have nukes it's also fair when they use those nukes against you.
Last edited by Spark (2007-03-30 20:23:01)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Morally, if you're not going to misuse something, you should be allowed to have it.
k dealTurquoise wrote:
I'll tell you what... If we let you cap our president in the head, you can let us cap the Ayatollah.التعريفات wrote:
No.Turquoise wrote:
Maybe capping the Ayatollah in the head will do the trick.
Let's face it... they're both shitty leaders that need to be removed....
invasion is the thing
uhhh no lets face it there are people who you can trust in the world and there are peope who you just can't trust because they are have crossed the border of sane and insane ie iran and N. Korea. Personally, i don't like nukes...takes out of all the fun on good ole house to house fighting. Chemical warefare...i am bit iffy on it and biological is definnate no no.
Norway, Sweden and Belgium aren't exactly trying to throw their weight around the playing field. You don't see Finland, for example, standing up and declaring that Poland will be bathed in holy fire.cMD-RR wrote:
It seems that nobody want Iran to have nukes ,but what would you think if for an example Norway, Sweden or Belgium got nukes.
Is it more legal for them to get the bombs than Iran?
Discuss.
They're just biding their time till they can get their hands on some nukes!unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Norway, Sweden and Belgium aren't exactly trying to throw their weight around the playing field. You don't see Finland, for example, standing up and declaring that Poland will be bathed in holy fire.cMD-RR wrote:
It seems that nobody want Iran to have nukes ,but what would you think if for an example Norway, Sweden or Belgium got nukes.
Is it more legal for them to get the bombs than Iran?
Discuss.
^^ exactly
Legally speaking, any nation that is a member of the NPT has no right to build nukes.
Morally speaking, Iran is more likely to use them for malicious purposes, so that lends some legitimacy to the claim that they aren't such a good candidate for them.
Morally speaking, Iran is more likely to use them for malicious purposes, so that lends some legitimacy to the claim that they aren't such a good candidate for them.
Legally speaking the US can't use white sulfur (a chemical weapon that they've repeatedly dropped on both military and civilians), develop bunker busting mini-nukes or develop biological weaponry, yet they still do. They also pulled out of the anti-ballistic weapons treaty despite all rational reason. Then they complain that Iran is possibly, maybe making the capacity to make nukes in a decade or so without any hint of irony whatsoever.Pubic wrote:
Legally speaking, any nation that is a member of the NPT has no right to build nukes.
Morally speaking, Iran is more likely to use them for malicious purposes, so that lends some legitimacy to the claim that they aren't such a good candidate for them.
What about your countries leader? He's a nut job.Mitch wrote:
I dont like any country besides us having nukes. Because a lot of countries, are ran by crazy ass people (cough south korea cough)
No country should have a weapon so powerful that it can destroy so many lives at once.
That is all you ever hear. Deal with it.Spark wrote:
All I hear is 'waa waa waa liberals'.