So far we have raised 0% of our monthly running costs! Thanks for your generosity!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
War with Iran, will the UK help
#51
procrasty Wrote:the west must destroy iran before they manufacture nukes and send us all into oblivion.
i say GO GO GO to the usa war on iran
that will be awesome

I seriously doubt that Iran can manufacture thousands of nuclear warheads.

The USA posies the greatest threat of nuclear annihilation, it has the most nukes with an admitted to 5500 active warheads.

This does not include its use of Depleted Uranium which is a form of atom it war. The USA fought a nuclear war in Iraq, and has effectively poisoned many generations of Iraqis to come with radioactivity.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/deplet...lkans.html to get you started:

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital, Iraq, had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed.

This also does not include 'black ops' programs where they worked on the Cobalt bomb AKA a Salted Bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

While no nation has admitted to making one, you can be certain that those nations are lying. After all the USA refused to admit it had Stealth Technology, spy Planes and many other wonderful weapons of war.

Iran having a nuclear ability is not a bad thing in an of itself. The only nation to have manufactured and used nuclear weapons is the USA. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and of course using Depleted Uranium in Iraq and other places.

Iran only wants a nuclear bomb or two to prevent big bad assed nations like the USA from just walking in. North Korea wants the bomb to protect itself. just like the USA manufactured thousands of nuclear bombs to prevent the USSR from just walking in.

Owning a nuclear bomb makes a nation 'safer' from attackers, the threat of having a nuclear retaliation works to prevent nations from making war with you. Look at how the USSR and USA never went to direct war out of fear of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Pakistan and India are doing it.

The only nation on earth that has demonstrated its willingness to use such devices is the USA. It is the only nation that has done so - on civilian populations no less and even.
<---<< >>--->

[SIZE=4]I told you I had the body of a 25 year old....

[Image: 57929.jpg?v=1]
[/SIZE]
Reply
#52
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:I seriously doubt that Iran can manufacture thousands of nuclear warheads.

The USA posies the greatest threat of nuclear annihilation, it has the most nukes with an admitted to 5500 active warheads.

This does not include its use of Depleted Uranium which is a form of atom it war. The USA fought a nuclear war in Iraq, and has effectively poisoned many generations of Iraqis to come with radioactivity.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/deplet...lkans.html to get you started:

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital, Iraq, had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed.

This also does not include 'black ops' programs where they worked on the Cobalt bomb AKA a Salted Bomb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_bomb

While no nation has admitted to making one, you can be certain that those nations are lying. After all the USA refused to admit it had Stealth Technology, spy Planes and many other wonderful weapons of war.

Iran having a nuclear ability is not a bad thing in an of itself. The only nation to have manufactured and used nuclear weapons is the USA. Dropping two atomic bombs on Japan and of course using Depleted Uranium in Iraq and other places.

Iran only wants a nuclear bomb or two to prevent big bad assed nations like the USA from just walking in. North Korea wants the bomb to protect itself. just like the USA manufactured thousands of nuclear bombs to prevent the USSR from just walking in.

Owning a nuclear bomb makes a nation 'safer' from attackers, the threat of having a nuclear retaliation works to prevent nations from making war with you. Look at how the USSR and USA never went to direct war out of fear of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Pakistan and India are doing it.

The only nation on earth that has demonstrated its willingness to use such devices is the USA. It is the only nation that has done so - on civilian populations no less and even.


Russia has the most nukes, actually. And North Korea has the most paranoid and button-ready leadership to use their eight nukes. Also, going in war with Iran would piss off China because while China dislikes muslims and has problems with islam, it considers Iran to be under it's sphere of influence. And no one wants to set China off.
Reply
#53
I'm just gonna say it's a matter of time until someone launches a Nuke. The US included. I love the US and may live there some day, but just because they always appear to be fighting the good fight, it doesn't mean that they are. Obviously most from america will stand up and say otherwise, which is only to be expected but there are a lot of things in this world that none of us "commoners" will ever know. And I think there are strings being pulled by puppeteers we don't even know exist.

I do enjoy conspiracy theories which gets me slated a lot, but all I say in return is, I just don't follow what is said in the media or by the leader of any country blindly. It is idiotic to do so and to believe that they are always right :-)

Will the UK help? I think they will be forced to. Granted who knows.
Reply
#54
NK doesn't have the missile technology capable of delivering their bombs anywhere farther than SK or Japan. Not that it would be good for those places to be hit by nuclear bombs, but the US isn't in actual danger from a nuclear strike by NK. Likewise, Iran doesn't have the capability to strike at Europe or the US, the main danger they pose, theoretically, is to Israel.

(The other danger, which really concern the US, is that NK doesn't play ball, so they might be willing to sell nuclear technology to other countries)
When a subject is highly controversial — and any question about sex is that — one cannot hope to tell the truth. One can only show how one came to hold whatever opinion one does hold. One can only give one's audience the chance of drawing their own conclusions as they observe the limitations, the prejudices, the idiosyncrasies of the speaker.
- Virginia Woolf
Reply
#55
Unfortunately, NK has a track record of not playing ball.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply
#56
While it might sound naieve, I've always considered nuclear weapons to be a bit of a bluff tactic... They are a symbol of power rather than a realistic threat.

Everybody is more than aware that a single launch would have catastrophic consequences, on the scale of apocalypse, and with this in mind they are always simply a concealed weapon. Hiroshima showed everyone the horrific consequences of atomic weapons, a tragedy which even the most cold-hearted and power hungry would not replicate.

With a world poisoned and ruined, who wants to be the king of nothing?

I guess what I'm saying is that even the most ruthless dictators are aware of the repercussions, thus making them a symbolic threat rather than a realistic one.

America has lately taken the attitude of being the planet's watchdog, and it is a very patronising and frustrating position for the rest of the world.
Reply
#57
Sil Wrote:While it might sound naieve, I've always considered nuclear weapons to be a bit of a bluff tactic... They are a symbol of power rather than a realistic threat.

Are you sure? Are you certain? Would you risk the anhilation of your country by attacking your enemy?

Everybody knows nuclear wepons are probably a bluff, but unless they are certain no one will call the bluff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply
#58
Bluff I think, is a bit of a misnomer, Sil. Deterrent and bargaining tool are probably the most accurate descriptions that a person could give to nuclear weapons.

And, Fred is right to some extent. There are real identifiable threats stemming from nuclear weapons. For the most part, these concern nongovernmental organizations, terrorists, getting their hands on them. Given security issues in the former U.S.S.R., it is a real possibility. But, you are right. It would take a great deal of insanity for a government to decide to use a nuclear weapon.

I don't think it is all together a matter of the United States wanting to become a "watchdog", as you describe it, Sil. I think it was a matter of it also being foisted upon the United States. It has occupied that roll since the beginning of its involvement in WWII, and the world (at least the western world) has preferred that situation . . . probably more than the American people have.
Reply
#59
Unfortunately, sooner or later, someone crazy enough to fire one will get his hands on one eventually...
Lets hope it's just one eh?:frown:
Silly Sarcastic So-and-so
Reply
#60
procrasty Wrote:the west must destroy iran before they manufacture nukes and send us all into oblivion.
i say GO GO GO to the usa war on iran
that will be awesome

terrifying attitude ... not helpful, aggressive and exactly what is needed to let the situation escalate. Iran is not a county of the US so it should be hard to explain why it is allowed for some country´s to have this kind of technology and for others not ... And no ... I´m not a friend of Iran.... but I see the same crisis like IraQ.... a war against vegetable-cans, plastic buckets and for Oil .. leaving back a helpless, unstable country.
Proud to be Gay & Pagan
)O(

[Image: pentagramm.gif]

31.10 Samhain, All Hallows Eve, Halloween
21.12 Yule
STOP eating Animals !
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)