IF YER ARE BUDDY, YE CAN HAVE 'EM

IF YOU AINT, FUCK YE, YE GAWNA DIIIIEEEEE

3/5/2006 5:40:24 PM

if you dont like america you can get the fuck out sir

3/5/2006 5:43:35 PM

I like America.

no place I'd rather be.

I just don't like old degenerates running shit.

3/5/2006 5:44:10 PM

nukes for everybody!

3/5/2006 5:46:44 PM

hahahah riiiiiggghhhttt

basically, if you generally don't like America, or agree with it, you can't have big weapons.

and we'll see to it that you don't.

[Edited on March 5, 2006 at 5:48 PM. Reason : eht2]

3/5/2006 5:47:57 PM

they took our jobs

3/5/2006 5:55:38 PM

i can see how letting ppl who are very interested in blowing other ppl up or using the ability to do so as bargaining power is a good idea.

3/5/2006 6:08:41 PM

Exactly why is it wrong for us to want only our true allies to have Nukes? I don't want to live in a world
where countries like Iran have any amount of power internationally.

3/5/2006 7:17:59 PM

Yes, how stupid would we be if we didn't differentiate between "Friends" and "Foes"?

What next, should Britain have been selling weapons to Germany during WW2?

3/5/2006 7:49:37 PM

This is the dumbest thread ever made.

Congratulations.

3/5/2006 7:56:18 PM

...But I thought Pakistan was our ally?


eh, n/m that shit went right out the window when we declared war on Islam.

3/5/2006 7:57:11 PM

Pakistan is also not nearly stable enough to feel comfortable giving them anything. There isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a coup attempt on Musharraf of varying degrees of success.

3/5/2006 8:05:38 PM

i think the point is that nukes should not be had by anyone.

3/5/2006 10:05:55 PM

i got that much, but it was phrased dumbly.

3/5/2006 10:30:58 PM

Quote :

"There isn't a week that goes by that there isn't a coup attempt on Musharraf of varying degrees of success."

Fill me in on these varying degrees, please.

3/5/2006 10:33:04 PM

Sometimes they're close. Sometimes they're not.

3/5/2006 11:30:29 PM

Quote :

"i got that much, but it was phrased dumbly."

I didn't phrase shit dumbly, nor did I imply that one should have them over the other.

Kids came here and spun my shit to fit their politics, which is what was expected.

I'm done here.

Good thing CDeezntz employs his neurons from time to time.



[Edited on March 6, 2006 at 4:32 AM. Reason : fucking TWW.]

3/6/2006 4:31:04 AM

worst thread ever

3/6/2006 7:23:27 AM

Quote :

"i think the point is that nukes should not be had by anyone."

OH SHIT YOU'VE JUST SOLVED OUR PROBLEMS THANKS MAN!

3/6/2006 8:21:15 AM

Quote :

"i think the point is that nukes should not be had by anyone."

Alright, so, his sarcasm could have been taken either way: Either the US is silly for trying so hard to keep its enemies from getting nukes, or the US is silly for not trying equally as hard to keep its friends from getting nukes.

Between these two, suggesting that the US should be threatening sanctions against Britain if it doesn't lose its nukes just sounds counter productive. Oportunity costs count for something. If we are haranging the British for their nukes, we aren't using the world stage to fight extremism.

Conversely, suggesting that the US should simply let countries that are very likely to use them have them, sounds equally counter productive (we already built New York City once, why should we have to do it again?).

3/6/2006 9:26:32 AM

STORM ALL THE CASTLE GATES AND TAKE THE WEAPONRY, MEN

3/6/2006 1:13:14 PM

3/6/2006 2:42:16 PM

if you fail to see the problem of iran with nukes, you are a fuckin moron. thats my $0.02

3/6/2006 9:30:25 PM

sure, I see a problem.

just like I see just about any country w/ nukes as a problem.

3/7/2006 3:28:31 AM

^ Really? Why? Do you believe they would ever be used? Or are you worried an "accident" might occur?

Finally, do you really think if the American's didn't have nukes the Chinese could be trusted to never use them in battle?

3/7/2006 10:11:06 AM

Which is why he said "any country with nukes is a problem"

Stop being a douchebag.

3/7/2006 11:28:33 AM

that policy sounds fine to me. Any country wants that policy. Lets see... what could possibly be the benefit of giving/allowing a country nuclear weapons? HMMM... lets think... that's wonderful foreign policy.

3/7/2006 11:52:54 AM

learn2english please.

3/7/2006 12:23:08 PM

Since you understand him so well, why don't you answer. Since so many people have nukes, does that not lessen the rationality of the U.S. giving up its nukes?

If no other countries had nukes, then I could understand calls for the U.S. to disarm, but this is not the case.

3/7/2006 12:46:13 PM

He didn't make a call to disarm.

He said he doesn't like anybody having nukes.

Its pretty simple.

3/7/2006 12:53:26 PM

I'm confused. If he doesn't like anyone, which includes us, having nukes, then why is he not in favor of us disarming?

Or is he simply wishing that they had never been invented, but since they have been invented he is glad America has enough to obliterate a continent?

3/7/2006 5:38:03 PM

has another country used nukes against another besides ours? I'm just wondering.

3/7/2006 8:20:55 PM

not yet, but it's a real small club.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 8:24 PM. Reason : *]

3/7/2006 8:23:37 PM

^ I think the amount of actual blast-zone would be much smaller than a continent. The real problem would be the radioactive winds and mutant robot zombies an the like...

Seriously though, it is impossible to remove nuclear bombs from the internation arsenal. The cat's out of the bag and it's not really that complicated to make one in the big scheme of things. I believe somebody wrote a PhD thesis on how to make one back in the 1970's (without any government lab help, just from basic principles). It's basic physics plus a little uranium. I'm amazed more countries don't have them now.

3/7/2006 8:27:04 PM

Uranium is expensive unless you catch one of the dell deals.

3/7/2006 8:33:22 PM

Quote :

"It's basic physics plus a little uranium. I'm amazed more countries don't have them now."

i love it how people think that they can duplicate in their backyard with a dremel a project that took the US government 6 years and cost, in today's dollars, 20 billion

a nuclear device is a sophisticated system that take the correct materials, equipment, and know how to make

that is why more countries don't have them, and the ones that do want them YEARS to get

3/7/2006 9:47:56 PM

^

i'm not arguing with you, just asking some questions (cause i don't know the answers)

what's the word on the black market cost for nuclear weapons?

though i guess if they buy one that way, they don't have containment facilities/money, but then again would that be the point?

regardless, would they have deliverability?

course i guess having one or two in your pocket doesn't make one a 'power,' but it could make them a threat

3/7/2006 9:59:26 PM

no one has ever bought a nuclear weapon as far as we know

the closest that has come to anything like that is the intervention in the sale of 10 ounces of plutonium in Munich in August 1994

here is a lawrance livermore national lab study on the dangers of plutonium (not as bad as you think when not in a nuke) that mentions the case

don't know how much the material was going for

http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/

found the amount of plutonium in "Fat Man" for comparison... 13.6 lbs; approx. size of a softball

and as far as deliverability, if you're smart enough to get a nuke, you're probably smart enough to sneak it through the mexican or canadian border, rent a u-haul, and go to town

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 10:11 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 10:03:58 PM

Quote :

" i love it how people think that they can duplicate in their backyard with a dremel a project that took the US government 6 years and cost, in today's dollars, 20 billion a nuclear device is a sophisticated system that take the correct materials, equipment, and know how to make that is why more countries don't have them, and the ones that do want them YEARS to get"

Not true. South Africa created a nuclear weapons program for a mere pittance. The mechanical stuff required is pretty primitive, and most countries easily have the capability to make the mechanical stuff necessary for a bomb. It's really not that sophisticated, seeing as how the science is well known. I don't know why you think the cost of discovering something 60 years ago is comparable to the cost of implementing well known stuff today.

The hardest parts are getting the fuels and hiding the program from the international community. That's more of a political problem rather than a technical one.

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 10:13 PM. Reason : sdfsdf]

3/7/2006 10:11:08 PM

those are countries with vast resources with links to other countries with vast resources

a person or small organization, in all practicality, in a reasonable amount of time, will not be able to make a nuke, it's just too hard

and honestly, i don't know how you can say "not true", when you're basically agreeing with me

except for the fact that you do not understand how techincally hard building one of these things actually is

[Edited on March 7, 2006 at 10:17 PM. Reason : .]

3/7/2006 10:14:08 PM

It is not "technically hard" to build a nuke once you have either enriched uranium or plutonium. Whether or not it is a big nuke would remain to be seen, and it might not work right. But just building one is relatively easy, all it takes is a good nuclear engineer, good physicist, good electrical engineer, some explosive, and an excellent machinist with a few years to work. More people would make it go faster.

Again, this is presuming the fuel is available, which is what blocks most entrants. Uranium is difficult to find, mine, refine, and process. It takes tens of thousands of man hours and immense capital expenditure to pull it off, unless you steal/buy it from someone else.

3/8/2006 12:49:57 AM

^exactly. presumably, any NGO looking to make a nuke would try to purchase or steal the fuel rather than manufacture it.

3/8/2006 1:02:25 AM

Quote :

"I'm confused. If he doesn't like anyone, which includes us, having nukes, then why is he not in favor of us disarming? Or is he simply wishing that they had never been invented, but since they have been invented he is glad America has enough to obliterate a continent? "

God I hate stupid people. I'd totally be in favor of us disarming, if it were at all possible for everyone else to disarm (and have a legitimate check balance system). I realize this is a pipe dream. But if you're simply here to have a good troll, be my guest.

3/8/2006 4:35:17 AM

use our nukes to blow up their nukes. it is a fullproof plan towards getting rid of them.


the reason i said your point was dumb initially isnt that it is unwarranted, but that it is completely out of the question now-a-days. now that i see you admit that, i have no issue.

3/8/2006 8:42:47 AM

Enriching the uranium so that it's weapons grade is the hardest step in developing a nuclear bomb. And it is part of the process, considering that you cannot just buy highly enriched uranium on the black market. It takes years of tuning and spinning thousands of highly sophisticated centrifuges to produce.

There is also that little detail of a delivery system. Most nations don't have missle silos and ICBM's to deliver the bomb to another continent.

3/8/2006 9:22:42 AM

Quote :

"i think the point is that nukes should not be had by anyone."

3/8/2006 9:23:39 AM

Hi-jack a Fed-Ex plane and use it to deliver the bomb. You can just push it out the back door.


[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 10:30 AM. Reason : click]

3/8/2006 10:21:03 AM

The US can't stop terrorism just like it can't stop other countries from developing nuclear capabilities, what it can do is improve it's social status and foreign relations.

3/8/2006 10:23:06 AM

Quote :

"all it takes is a good nuclear engineer, good physicist, good electrical engineer, some explosive, and an excellent machinist with a few years to work."

yeah, all those people are readily available with the know how to work with the materials used in nuclear weapons at a moments notice

totally easy

i should check monster.com RIGHT NOW

...

and for the love of god, don't bring up russians

the US and Russia work hard to try to keep those poor bastards under lock

[Edited on March 8, 2006 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

3/8/2006 11:09:07 AM

ITS LIKE A NUT
YOU CAN PLAY WITH OUTSIDE

3/8/2006 11:11:24 AM