FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > War is inevitable
War is inevitable
Jump to: Newest in thread
"Good. Let them try whilst there is a president of the USA in power who will actually sort them out once and for all using force. Then the dynasty will be gone and the North Koreans who survive can be free."
Fixed it for you.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Good. Let them try whilst there is a president of the USA in power who will actually sort them out once and for all using force. Then the dynasty will be gone and the North Koreans can be free."
Glowing In the dark post nuclear but free to do so without fear of reprisals |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Good. Let them try whilst there is a president of the USA in power who will actually sort them out once and for all using force. Then the dynasty will be gone and the North Koreans can be free."
errrrrrrrrrrm there's an ever so slight flaw here ..........  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan "
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
When did they say this? Basically if it kicks off it will be total suicide for them. Given their development is defensive, they won;t develop enough first strike capability to knock out the US then a contained balance might be the best option. I'd worry more about Iran who have undoubted regional ambitions in a very unstable part of the world. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?."
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?.
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me"
UN (America and Britain) got it's but kicked Macarthur threatened to use nukes and the Soviets and Chinese said any such attack would result in them attacking the USA so the UN sued for peace and signed an armistices. And just to be clear that war is still going on, there has been no peace treaty and every now and then (well monthly) the N Koreans either shoot someone across the DMZ or lob a few shells across or mount a a commando raid to take hostages for ransom. And the South Koreans and Americans do nothing and pay up because they are shit scared of the N Koreans.
However draught dodging donny, who chickened out of visiting the DMZ is really up for starting a war there. After all none of his family will be in the line of fire. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do."
Most other countries aren't bat shit crazy by testing over another country's? airspace  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?.
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me"
it was a draw, - even after the penalty shoot out ...... so a defeat for outside forces |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do.
Most other countries aren't bat shit crazy by testing over another country's? airspace "
think a little while about what you just said, slowly but surely adding measurements of bat shit .........
no one tests nukes over other's airspace except the only one who's actually dropped one or two.
Yes that country who's arse has been well & truly licked clean by a certain other nation.
  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do.
Most other countries aren't bat shit crazy by testing over another country's? airspace
think a little while about what you just said, slowly but surely adding measurements of bat shit .........
no one tests nukes over other's airspace except the only one who's actually dropped one or two.
Yes that country who's arse has been well & truly licked clean by a certain other nation.
"
I would argue the finer points of crazy and then remember who is the current US President  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do.
Most other countries aren't bat shit crazy by testing over another country's? airspace
think a little while about what you just said, slowly but surely adding measurements of bat shit .........
no one tests nukes over other's airspace except the only one who's actually dropped one or two.
Yes that country who's arse has been well & truly licked clean by a certain other nation.
I would argue the finer points of crazy and then remember who is the current US President "
Now you're cooking with gas
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well sooner or later all of his postering and firing of missiles is going to end up in an accident as in one dropping out of the sky over a populated area and the shit will really hit the fan
yes but he isn't firing nukes, despite what some of the news agencies say, he's merely testing rockets like many other countries do.
Most other countries aren't bat shit crazy by testing over another country's? airspace
think a little while about what you just said, slowly but surely adding measurements of bat shit .........
no one tests nukes over other's airspace except the only one who's actually dropped one or two.
Yes that country who's arse has been well & truly licked clean by a certain other nation.
I would argue the finer points of crazy and then remember who is the current US President "
you forgot to mention Putin aswell could probably stick a few more loonies on there lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
An economist called Robert Axelrod wrote a book about game theory and he popularised a type of game strategy called tit for tat.
He also showed that tit for tat is the best overall strategy for keeping the peace but for tit for tat to work you need transparency.
The strategy is basically:
Be nice: cooperate, never be the first to defect.
Be provocable: return defection for defection, cooperation for cooperation.
Don't be envious: focus on maximizing your own 'score', as opposed to ensuring your score is higher than your 'partner's'.
Don't be too clever: or, don't try to be tricky. Clarity is essential for others to cooperate with you.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"An economist called Robert Axelrod wrote a book about game theory and he popularised a type of game strategy called tit for tat.
He also showed that tit for tat is the best overall strategy for keeping the peace but for tit for tat to work you need transparency.
The strategy is basically:
Be nice: cooperate, never be the first to defect.
Be provocable: return defection for defection, cooperation for cooperation.
Don't be envious: focus on maximizing your own 'score', as opposed to ensuring your score is higher than your 'partner's'.
Don't be too clever: or, don't try to be tricky. Clarity is essential for others to cooperate with you.
"
The President of the USA "always" wins though doesn't he, so that's lucky... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"An economist called Robert Axelrod wrote a book about game theory and he popularised a type of game strategy called tit for tat.
He also showed that tit for tat is the best overall strategy for keeping the peace but for tit for tat to work you need transparency.
The strategy is basically:
Be nice: cooperate, never be the first to defect.
Be provocable: return defection for defection, cooperation for cooperation.
Don't be envious: focus on maximizing your own 'score', as opposed to ensuring your score is higher than your 'partner's'.
Don't be too clever: or, don't try to be tricky. Clarity is essential for others to cooperate with you.
"
Actually the tit for tat theory only works if neither side does a tit for the other side to tat to fist. If either sides does do a tit and then tits again to the other sides tat it is actually the worst strategy. The actual best strategy in game theory to produce good results is tit for tat then offer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A nuclear war would spell the end of the world as we know it  "
That is not necessarily so. In fact the only way to cause a 'nuclear winter' would be by having all the devices 'ground' or 'subsurface' burst (detonate) on geological faults. Even the effect of EMP are now for the most part mitigated. In fact there is a growing body of evidence that points to nuclear war being less costly in lives, disruption and damage to the environment than conventional warfare provided 'air bursts' are used. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In an age of rapid climate change and rising temperatures and over population and loss of habitat for nature.Nuclear war sells its self as a solution. Chernobyl is a great example of nature bouncing back and thriving once man is removed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In an age of rapid climate change and rising temperatures and over population and loss of habitat for nature.Nuclear war sells its self as a solution. Chernobyl is a great example of nature bouncing back and thriving once man is removed. "
Never sure when your trying to wind people up or not lol
But I like it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In an age of rapid climate change and rising temperatures and over population and loss of habitat for nature.Nuclear war sells its self as a solution. Chernobyl is a great example of nature bouncing back and thriving once man is removed. Never sure when your trying to wind people up or not lol
But I like it "
Chernobyl is a nature reserve.The 30km exclusion zone has 7 times the number of wolves and deer and elk and boar compared to most of the region.Radiation good mankind bad
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Well apparently Russia, China & India are prepared to back North Korea! Will we be dragged into conflict or is US strong enough to take them on by themselves? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well apparently Russia, China & India are prepared to back North Korea! Will we be dragged into conflict or is US strong enough to take them on by themselves? "
Are you sure about India? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well apparently Russia, China & India are prepared to back North Korea! Will we be dragged into conflict or is US strong enough to take them on by themselves? "
I doubt they would ?
What could they gain ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *imiUKMan
over a year ago
Hereford |
"Well apparently Russia, China & India are prepared to back North Korea! Will we be dragged into conflict or is US strong enough to take them on by themselves? I doubt they would ?
What could they gain ? "
China will always back N.Korea if it comes to war because they will see any attack on them as an attack on global Communism.
No idea about the other two, though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In an age of rapid climate change and rising temperatures and over population and loss of habitat for nature.Nuclear war sells its self as a solution. Chernobyl is a great example of nature bouncing back and thriving once man is removed. "
Maybe alternative ways to achieve some of the same goals would have less devastating longer term consequences. Nuclear contamination persisting for years, with effects upon the natural world and other life forms could remove other species permanently - good ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?.
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me
UN (America and Britain) got it's but kicked Macarthur threatened to use nukes and the Soviets and Chinese said any such attack would result in them attacking the USA so the UN sued for peace and signed an armistices. And just to be clear that war is still going on, there has been no peace treaty and every now and then (well monthly) the N Koreans either shoot someone across the DMZ or lob a few shells across or mount a a commando raid to take hostages for ransom. And the South Koreans and Americans do nothing and pay up because they are shit scared of the N Koreans.
However draught dodging donny, who chickened out of visiting the DMZ is really up for starting a war there. After all none of his family will be in the line of fire. "
You hit the nail on the head. Even more fucked up is the destabilising factor it would create around the world. People think we have problems now. Wait till world war 3 starts and hundreds of millions of people emigrate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Good. Let them try whilst there is a president of the USA in power who will actually sort them out once and for all using force. Then the dynasty will be gone and the North Koreans can be free."
err what's trump going to do about the kamakazi sleeper cells already spread out in sleepy towns all over the country as well as weapons of mass destruction bush was looking for in iraq there probably hidden in plane sight ready to be detonated. don't think people who are bullied by the west will forget about it.
indian reservation sites could be a good place to look! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?.
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me
UN (America and Britain) got it's but kicked Macarthur threatened to use nukes and the Soviets and Chinese said any such attack would result in them attacking the USA so the UN sued for peace and signed an armistices. And just to be clear that war is still going on, there has been no peace treaty and every now and then (well monthly) the N Koreans either shoot someone across the DMZ or lob a few shells across or mount a a commando raid to take hostages for ransom. And the South Koreans and Americans do nothing and pay up because they are shit scared of the N Koreans.
However draught dodging donny, who chickened out of visiting the DMZ is really up for starting a war there. After all none of his family will be in the line of fire.
You hit the nail on the head. Even more fucked up is the destabilising factor it would create around the world. People think we have problems now. Wait till world war 3 starts and hundreds of millions of people emigrate. "
wakey wakey we have been in war since the dawn of time! But technically world war 3 began in the 90s with the invasion of iraq its on going and will eventually escalate in to mutal nuclear distruction.The west will suffer the most because they have been accustomed to a life of ease and comfort.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"North Korea say that nuclear war is inevitable and it's a matter of when not if. What do you think?.
What was the results of the last War with North Korea???
.
remind me"
Score draw at best! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I imagine in the age we live in of computer guided missiles etc that governments would have the ability to hack other countries defences to prevent missile launches"
Then you would imagine wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Well apparently Russia, China & India are prepared to back North Korea! Will we be dragged into conflict or is US strong enough to take them on by themselves?
Are you sure about India?"
Well it was reported as such and yes I was a little suprised - not taking an interest in Indian politics I don't know if they are "close" to Russia? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uxinteriorMan
over a year ago
south west , continental |
It's a good question OP.
N Korea like any other country has the right to defend its self.
The leader is bit of a crackpot. But he's just flexing muscle.
Loads of countries have nuclear capability. He's just trying to prove to his people that he's as good as everyone else.
China and Russia tend to back N Korea as they have monetary and military interests there. I'm not convinced that Mr Putin is that daft to back a war and neither is the Chinese lot.
Mr Trump has to tread careful too, he doesn't want to loose face either. So a massive war of words ensues.
There is lots of other stuff going on around the world that is equally inflammable, stuff that keeps the population interested and living in a state of constant fear driven by greedy corrupt politicians and a sensationalist warped media.
If the 3 world War does happen then there is not a lot anyone can do. We the average people will be dead, millions displaced, deseased, sick and living on a contaminated planet where climate change will be irrelevant. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We the average people will be dead, millions displaced, deseased, sick and living on a contaminated planet where climate change will be irrelevant. "
Average people dying is probably correct. But your belief that those who do not die will be left on a contaminated planet is far from certain.
You base your belief on the atmospheric detonations both tests and in anger of the 40's and 50's plus and the results of nuclear accidents and releases around the world over the past 70 or so years. What you fail to take into account is that all of these have been either 'ground' or 'subsurface' bursts or their equivalent. It is highly unlikely that any nuclear exchange would be of that type.
In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that if there is a regional or global nuclear exchange by superpowers (all nuclear armed nations are superpowers although the US, Russian and Chinese propaganda would have the world believe they are the only superpowers) that it would be of the 'air' burst variety and therefore there would be very little persistent radiation, and relatively small 'hot spots' at ground zero's. Further, if 'enhanced radiation devices' (neutron bombs) are used then the 'hot spots' shrink shrink to being virtually zero with very little damage being done to buildings and infrastructure meaning that areas hit by such bombs can be reoccupied within hours. (Neutron bombs deliver such a massive radiation burst that it incompatible with life but with little blast.)
The bottom line is why would any protagonist in a nuclear exchange deliberately contaminate the planet by use of 'ground' or 'subsurface' bursts when they can inflict the same (or greater) damage on their target using an 'air' burst that will not contaminate the planet? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We the average people will be dead, millions displaced, deseased, sick and living on a contaminated planet where climate change will be irrelevant.
Average people dying is probably correct. But your belief that those who do not die will be left on a contaminated planet is far from certain.
You base your belief on the atmospheric detonations both tests and in anger of the 40's and 50's plus and the results of nuclear accidents and releases around the world over the past 70 or so years. What you fail to take into account is that all of these have been either 'ground' or 'subsurface' bursts or their equivalent. It is highly unlikely that any nuclear exchange would be of that type.
In fact it is pretty well guaranteed that if there is a regional or global nuclear exchange by superpowers (all nuclear armed nations are superpowers although the US, Russian and Chinese propaganda would have the world believe they are the only superpowers) that it would be of the 'air' burst variety and therefore there would be very little persistent radiation, and relatively small 'hot spots' at ground zero's. Further, if 'enhanced radiation devices' (neutron bombs) are used then the 'hot spots' shrink shrink to being virtually zero with very little damage being done to buildings and infrastructure meaning that areas hit by such bombs can be reoccupied within hours. (Neutron bombs deliver such a massive radiation burst that it incompatible with life but with little blast.)
The bottom line is why would any protagonist in a nuclear exchange deliberately contaminate the planet by use of 'ground' or 'subsurface' bursts when they can inflict the same (or greater) damage on their target using an 'air' burst that will not contaminate the planet? "
Do you think NK's weapons will be that advanced? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uxinteriorMan
over a year ago
south west , continental |
Will, in response I agree with you. Technology is very advanced in this area, Nuclear fusion has come a long way since the 'duck and cover' of the 1950s.
I very much doubt N Korea has airburst capability. However Russia, China, USA and others including the UK has.
I wonder if the Russian or Chinese technicians helping the N Koreans are possibly exploring these areas.
At the moment though it's just rocket testing and sabre rattling.
Is there not other devices around that use sound waves or magnetic waves to cause distruction, perhaps you may be able to enlighten me on those technologies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Do you think NK's weapons will be that advanced? "
The NK's claim to have a thermonuclear bomb. The peanut shaped thing they displayed looked like a thermonuclear device and personally I will take them at their word. So yes, they have advanced nuclear weapons. And by the way you are confusing the weapon  with the delivery system (missile).
"I very much doubt N Korea has airburst capability. However Russia, China, USA and others including the UK has.
I wonder if the Russian or Chinese technicians helping the N Koreans are possibly exploring these areas.
At the moment though it's just rocket testing and sabre rattling.
Is there not other devices around that use sound waves or magnetic waves to cause distruction, perhaps you may be able to enlighten me on those technologies. "
From the above reply I have to assume you do not understand what an 'air burst' is.
There is really no such thing as 'air burst' technology (unless you class a barometric altimeter available for under £500 from ebay or amazon) as 'air burst technology'. In fact I believe that had the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs been detonated at a height of 10,000 ft (rather than the 2,000 that they were detonated at) then they would have been 'air bursts' rather than the 'ground bursts' they were.
So as NK now have a missile that reach the whole of the USA I would suggest that they already have the capability to deliver 'air bursts' to the majority of the USA. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I imagine in the age we live in of computer guided missiles etc that governments would have the ability to hack other countries defences to prevent missile launches
Then you would imagine wrong."
It's hard to believe then that in this technologically advanced age countries such as the US don't have the capability to disable/disarm.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uxinteriorMan
over a year ago
south west , continental |
So let's think a bit further on from thermo nuclear devices, hydrogen bombs etc. What about the Haarp program, what about the Hadron collider. Secret programs are always developing stuff and fiddling with nature, the military always have a vested interest somewhere amongst it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *LCCCouple
over a year ago
Cambridge |
"I imagine in the age we live in of computer guided missiles etc that governments would have the ability to hack other countries defences to prevent missile launches
Then you would imagine wrong.
It's hard to believe then that in this technologically advanced age countries such as the US don't have the capability to disable/disarm.
"
Have you ever seen this capability demonstrated, or even claimed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I imagine in the age we live in of computer guided missiles etc that governments would have the ability to hack other countries defences to prevent missile launches
Then you would imagine wrong.
It's hard to believe then that in this technologically advanced age countries such as the US don't have the capability to disable/disarm.
Have you ever seen this capability demonstrated, or even claimed? "
Wouldn't that be idea,to keep it up your sleave.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my behalf that governments would invest in such tech, I find it unnerving that if someone has their finger on the fire button then it's curtains |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"I imagine in the age we live in of computer guided missiles etc that governments would have the ability to hack other countries defences to prevent missile launches
Then you would imagine wrong.
It's hard to believe then that in this technologically advanced age countries such as the US don't have the capability to disable/disarm.
Have you ever seen this capability demonstrated, or even claimed?
Wouldn't that be idea,to keep it up your sleave.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my behalf that governments would invest in such tech, I find it unnerving that if someone has their finger on the fire button then it's curtains"
To be fair, though, that is the entire point of a nuclear deterrent.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wouldn't that be idea,to keep it up your sleave.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my behalf that governments would invest in such tech, I find it unnerving that if someone has their finger on the fire button then it's curtains"
I find it strange that you are so fearful of nuclear weapons bu have no such fear of conventional weapons. Especially when you consider that between 1900 and August 1945 conventional weapons killed some 80 odd million in wars and since the first use of the weapons you so fear (that have killed less than 500,000) have killed a further 22 million + people in wars.
Guess that provided the killing is done by means of a steady flow its OK but single mass killings offend...
Sounds like poor thinking to me...
In fact it sounds like a total lack of thinking to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago
Barbados |
"Wouldn't that be idea,to keep it up your sleave.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my behalf that governments would invest in such tech, I find it unnerving that if someone has their finger on the fire button then it's curtains
I find it strange that you are so fearful of nuclear weapons bu have no such fear of conventional weapons. Especially when you consider that between 1900 and August 1945 conventional weapons killed some 80 odd million in wars and since the first use of the weapons you so fear (that have killed less than 500,000) have killed a further 22 million + people in wars.
Guess that provided the killing is done by means of a steady flow its OK but single mass killings offend...
Sounds like poor thinking to me...
In fact it sounds like a total lack of thinking to me."
Then I guess you don’t see the psychological effect nuclear weapons have. I don’t think anyone is saying conventional weapon killing is good. But the sudden catastrophic effect of a nuclear strike is something I think most people would fear more.
-Matt |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Wouldn't that be idea,to keep it up your sleave.
Perhaps it's wishful thinking on my behalf that governments would invest in such tech, I find it unnerving that if someone has their finger on the fire button then it's curtains
I find it strange that you are so fearful of nuclear weapons bu have no such fear of conventional weapons. Especially when you consider that between 1900 and August 1945 conventional weapons killed some 80 odd million in wars and since the first use of the weapons you so fear (that have killed less than 500,000) have killed a further 22 million + people in wars.
Guess that provided the killing is done by means of a steady flow its OK but single mass killings offend...
Sounds like poor thinking to me...
In fact it sounds like a total lack of thinking to me."
I guess you mean why do I fear a nuclear strike that will wipe out evertything within a radius and leave the area uninhabitable for years to come as opposed to two armies facing off against each in a war zone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Then I guess you don’t see the psychological effect nuclear weapons have. I don’t think anyone is saying conventional weapon killing is good. But the sudden catastrophic effect of a nuclear strike is something I think most people would fear more.
-Matt"
I am fully aware of the psychology of escalation, but don't understand how supposedly intelligent, educated and sophisticated people can be so in the thrall of emotionally driven belief and blind to objective realities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I guess you mean why do I fear a nuclear strike that will wipe out evertything within a radius and leave the area uninhabitable for years to come as opposed to two armies facing off against each in a war zone."
Try reading my earlier posts and learning rather than projecting your uninformed bias on a subject you clearly know nothing about. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So let's think a bit further on from thermo nuclear devices, hydrogen bombs etc. What about the Haarp program, what about the Hadron collider. Secret programs are always developing stuff and fiddling with nature, the military always have a vested interest somewhere amongst it. "
The LHC isn't a weapon it's a tool for discovery .Haarp is a favourite of conspiracy theorists but seems harmless .Of course there is lots of secret stuff being developed.Space based weapons and hypersonic weapons.Someone might well have technology to make a ICBM obsolete but the moment you use it .The secrets out.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I guess you mean why do I fear a nuclear strike that will wipe out evertything within a radius and leave the area uninhabitable for years to come as opposed to two armies facing off against each in a war zone.
Try reading my earlier posts and learning rather than projecting your uninformed bias on a subject you clearly know nothing about."
I hope I didn't come across as favouring one method of killing above another or trying to project my limited knowledge of nuclear weaponry,I am neither a nuclear physicist or weapons expert though I could prob Google some technical knowledge on the subject, that said I am led to believe they create a loud bang when they go off and most likely kill a lot of innocent people at once while probably being bad for the environment. Therefore I think it's probably a bad thing that at present we have people threatening to use one and hopefully somewhere someone has a method of nullifying said threat that doesn't involve firing one back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uxinteriorMan
over a year ago
south west , continental |
Yes I know the concept of the LHC Bob, but what are those scientists discovering. colliding particles would appear rather fascinating for military development. All a bit beyond my science capability though. innocent discovery programs such as these are surely of military interest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Science often has military applications.Splitting the atom for example has been both bad and good.
The scientific discovery i fear most that can be weaponised is AI.You can bet the military is heavily involved in it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Science often has military applications.Splitting the atom for example has been both bad and good.
The scientific discovery i fear most that can be weaponised is AI.You can bet the military is heavily involved in it."
Bob, about 90% of all scientific research (including medical research) is either military research of spin-offs of military research. There are very few scientific programs that are not connected to the industry of war. The LHC is a military research spin off.
Further you mentioned the HAARP program and hinted at other military high energy research, now although these areas are far outside my fields of military study and I have no real knowledge of them I do know they are all linked because they all involve research into different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, and I would point out that atomic weapons also use the highest band of that spectrum (Gama waves) to deadly effect. Therefore it should not be a surprise to anyone that the worlds military are researching the rest of the spectrum for other weapon systems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
