US hypocracy.......

What to do! :eek:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/

Whirlwind,,,,

Think how many people that money could feed and educate, but its better to get that military complex vote going for Bush eh?

The US will again use her nuclear weapons soon enough, they call it tactical, I call it madness. Quite simply one can now understand why NK wants nukes herself. The US has started a nuclear arms race again, the US is causing this. She isn't reacting to anything. Rumsfeld wants to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan to knock out those caves. Russia in her white paper is starting to reconsider her nuclear stance as well as a reaction to the ratcheting up of nuclear tensions from Washington. Pulling out of the ABM treaty, and now this, the US is raising the stakes. While most of us were too concerned with Al Q we can only imagine what this administration has done with nukes.

Fcuk me! That's alot of nuclear weapons! Anyway, they aren't needed anymore are they?

And waht's so tactical about a tactical nuke? A nuke is a nuke right? Or is it using a smaller explosion by using less materials. Like a Mini-A-Bomb??

And waht's so tactical about a tactical nuke?

It’s a smaller warhead, which is not like a Hiroshima weapon. But nevertheless causes lot’s of damage, and has the same horrid effects on the region. Its purpose is to be used against military targets like bunkers, and caves. This is only going to increase nuclear tensions.

Ah, the fabled "Bunker Buster". So how is the use of nuclear weapons supposed to help in the search for nuclear weapons? And how does the US justify trying to stop people getting nukes when they're willing to use them willy nilly?

Exactly my point...

Well I hit that nail on the head and I was blindfolded, w00t!!

the tacticle nukes were designed to take out (collapse) the caves in Afganistan, like a suped up bunker buster. I'm not sure but i think they are hydrogen fusion bombs, which means that there is little/no radiation afterwards. Not sure on that last one though.

Fusion requires a fission reaction to start in a bomb, and is thus reserved as a booster to strategic weapons. Tactical nukes are lower yield, giving the harmful effects to a smaller area, though the mechanisms required for the smaller devices generally used are dirtier. If full-scale development had continued, we would have much cleaner, more efficient nukes. Though this means nothing to the people their being dropped on.

yes! we've found th nukes in Iraq!! - a fire works factory!! we got the biological weapons too - a pharmacy!!!

forget having a war with Israel, they'll never have nukes, they're rich, got powerful weapons and Scientists have come out confessing nukes but forget that, Iraq is a threat to world peace!!!!

If Iraq is a threat to world peace, then why did the entire EU and Russian Federation vote the US as the greatest threat to peace?

Whirlwind....

Obviously because the EU is in league with Iraq ;)

No other explanation.

If Iraq is a threat to world peace, then why did the entire EU and Russian Federation vote the US as the greatest threat to peace?
So you believe that Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to world peace?

From the last century, USA was the primary force to defeat all the three greatest threats: Germany, Japan and Italy. EU and Russian Federation? What happened to the rest of the world?

The greatest threat to the world now is terrorism and USA will defeat them as well even without the help from the countries whose butts were saved by USA before including the ungrateful EU and Russia. Just wait and see!

Hmm..."terrorism" is kind of nebulous. I've noticed that just about everything today is declared under "terrorism", say some nation does something someone else doesn't like, they're called terrorists, or some criminal goes and holds up a shopping mall, he's now a terrorist...anyone who hijacks an aircraft or something is now a terrorist...I think the word is beginning to lose its meaning and becoming a media buzzword. But that aside, "terrorism" and all that it entails is definitely a world problem. I don't think many people disagree with that, even if they have different definitions of terrorism. The disagreement comes with how to DEAL with terrorism, and I think that the first step there is to figure out WHY terrorism occurs. A lot of people will talk about religious reasons, or whatever, but always underlying that are economic issues. People don't start wars over religion, they start them over economic issues, or because whoever they're against did horrible things to them or their people.

You hear about how the US helped Osama way back when, and sure, maybe we were right, or maybe we weren't. But the thing is, we left him out to dry. THAT'S why he hates us...and the same sort of rationality can be seen in most of the people that hate the US, and the West. Generally the people in charge have very specific and valid reasons to hate us. I mean, if some country went in and killed your neighbors for some cash, or land, or etc, wouldn't you be kind of pissed off? If a country does this enough, they're bound to piss off some people who will actually do something about it.

So what does this have to do with combatting terrorism? Well, once we understand the cause, we can work on PREVENTATIVE measures to stop terrorists from forming. Just killing people who are already terrorists just pisses off more people; terrorists to us are freedomfighters to others, are soldiers to other, etc. When you start killing off an "army of the people" as many see these terrorists, you start pissing the people off. Then more people join this army of the people...killing terrorists ruthlessly is ruling by fear, and we all know that fear and oppression are "bad things".

Now, I suppose the attack on this will be "then what do you propose we do? acquiesce to the terrorists' demands, and get killed by them?".

To that I say no, I really do think that terrorists who actually attack our people should be killed, I mean, we have a right to live...but, we shouldn't enact policies which piss more people off, we should actually work to help humanity instead of selfishly. Help educate people, let people be ruled by who they wish, but warn them, in a friendly manner, that they will be killed if they attack you.

Eh...I forgot where I was going with this...oh, yea...so, anyway, my solution to stop terrorism: Stop messing in the politics of other nations unless a) we're asked or b) they present a real and PRESENT danger to the stability of the world. In case a), don't pansy out halfway through, if you're going to do something, do it right the first time. In case b), getting support from our allies should be incredibly easy...

So yea, why don't we fight the war on terrorism by stamping out the root cause instead of just killing people and using terrorism as an excuse to build friendly nations to obtain natural resources...

And more on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I've got it! They sold them to {insert the next country to attack here}. Damn, I'm smart, eh?

So you believe that Iraq under Saddam was never a threat to world peace?

Saddam was menace back in the 80's when every major western power supported him. After 1991 and especially after 1998 he was a meek shell of himself. He didn't threaten anyone seriously and he didn't even control all of Iraq.

From the last century, USA was the primary force to defeat all the three greatest threats: Germany, Japan and Italy. EU and Russian Federation? What happened to the rest of the world?

Italy? LOL...anyways, the EU didn't exist so they couldn't have done anything. The Russians, well they can be credited with defeating Nazi Germany more then anyone else. You did the puff compared to what the Soviets were doing in the East. The USSR would have won imo anyways without the Normandy invasions; all that really did was secure that Western Europe didn't end up Soviet. Japan the US did most of the work indeed...

The greatest threat to the world now is terrorism and USA will defeat them as well even without the help from the countries whose butts were saved by USA before including the ungrateful EU and Russia. Just wait and see

The US is not going to win a war against terrorism, especially as long as she is killing and pillaging nations. You are dealing with an enemy potentially more serious then the USSR, and Nazi Germany really ever was. There people reside next door or down the street, there is potential army of 1.3 billion. The US cannot fight alone; do you think the US would be in Afghanistan without China? Russia? Pakistan? I don't think so, the US needs the world. Especially after the grand intel. failures of the US as of late. The EU and Russia warned you like good allies (not yes men) not to go into Iraq for the reasons you are seeing now. If anything the US' war on terror has made it only worse. Good Job!

[QUOTE=Cazov]Hmm..."terrorism" is kind of nebulous. I've noticed that just about everything today is declared under "terrorism"

Whirlwind discusses: TERRORISM...... :(

It's an interesting word,

Example:

1. A Palestinian CRUISE BOMBER takes out an Israeli bus.

"Terrorism!"

2. An IDF Merkava tank shoots a 120 mm "Fletchette" anti-personnel shell at a group of "stone throwing" kids killing a slew of them.

"Self defense!"

3. A dropped US CLUSTER BOMBLET laying out in an open field kills a group of innocent Afghan kids playing soccer out in a field in Afghanistan.

"Oooops!"

Yassir, "ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MANS FREEDOM FIGHTER."

Whirlwind....

...(omitted for space reasons)

3. A dropped US CLUSTER BOMBLET laying out in an open field kills a group of innocent Afghan kids playing soccer out in a field in Afghanistan.

"Oooops!"
Whirlwind....

It does seem like everyone is calling everyone else a terrorist, whether it applies or not...of course since we're (I'd say a lot of people here, not all, but most) in the "west" we see more of the terrorism calls being targetted at everyone else (and even ourselves in the case of the US/France relations...), I'm pretty sure that on "the other side" the West is called terrorist as well, it's a media buzzword :)

America invented nukes, used nukes, are the only country to ever use nukes, started the nuclear arms race, continued the nuke arm race even when there was no one to race with (after Russia fell), us used biological weapons (agent orange in vietnam)

AND THESE STUPID POLITICIANS HAVE THE BOTTLE TO FIGHT OTHER COUNTRIES BECASUE OF THEIR "WEAPONS OF mASS DESTRUCTION"

America made the Taliban regime in Afghanistan when it suited America but when it didn;t it had a war.
.

Think how many people that money could feed and educate, but its better to get that military complex vote going for Bush eh?

that $6 BILLION was just on Nukes nothing else and that is nothing compared to the campared to the annual US budget of almost $400 BILLION dollars a year on weapons. thats more then the combined milatry budget of the following 22 countries on the list!!

all of this while 41 million Americans are either, homeless, below the poverty line, illiterate or without medical insurance.

Preacher - First of all, Sadam used mustard gas to kill off his own people who didnt agree with him in every way. Hundreds of thousands were killed like this. This gives us a pretty good reason to believe he has weapons of mass destruction. Also, do you really think Iraqis wanted to be raped and tortured by their leaders? Dont think they did. We are worried about other countries obtaining weapons of mass destruction because they are unstable countries who dont give a damn about anything but their own fucked up fundamentalist religious beliefs (overgeneralization but you get my point). As to how we spend our own money -- thats up to us. Homless, poor, illiterate, without medical insurance... all these people can vote. We vote who we want in office to make the decisions, and its worked great for over 200 years. How we spend our money is none of any other countries business. And most people dont like Bush even in the US, granted.

First of all, Sadam used mustard gas to kill off his own people who didnt agree with him in every way.

The US said it was Iran, funny that... It's the height of hypocrisy* for a American to say anything about Saddam's attacks against the Kurds when it was the US who was covering it up for him. Also lest we forget it was the US gave Saddam Satellite photo's in the war with Iran, what good buddies they once were.

This gives us a pretty good reason to believe he has weapons of mass destruction.

Where's the beef? 98% of his programs were destroyed by 1998. The US didn't allow UNSCOM enough time to check Iraq's WMD programs to see if they were dismantled. This war has nothing to do with WMD, ignoramuses believe that.

Also, do you really think Iraqis wanted to be raped and tortured by their leaders? Dont think they did.

Seems as of late the US is doing the same thing...things have gotten worse in Iraq.

Homless, poor, illiterate, without medical insurance... all these people can vote.

I hope you aren't talking about Iraq, which was the most progressive state in the Arab world?!?

I hope you aren't talking about Iraq, which was the most progressive state in the Arab world?!?

If you were fortunate enough to be a Sunni.

True, but it was better then S.A, or Iran, or many other states. Now with the almost inevitable victory of Shi'a Islam in gov't, people would wish for the Bath'ists back, that's scary to say the least.

US hypocracy.......

What to do! :eek:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2099425/

Whirlwind,,,,
You (and the idiot who wrote this article) don't understand that custodial upkeep of a nuclear weapon stockpile necessitates modernization of it. I've posted about this exact subject a number of times in this forum, so I'll just rehash what I've said before.

As far as the supposedly "tactical" weapons go, I'm not too concerned. This isn't anything new, really. Battlefield weapons have been heavily reserached and sought after since the 1950s. Last time it was seriously looked at was in 95 or 96 or so (IIRC), at the suggestion of the Clinton administration. Now the difference is that there's a line-item for it in the budget ahead of time, and that alone seems to be making people nervous. The proliferation worries have failed to sway me yet. The suggestion that the US is pulling a "do as we say, not as we do" is somewhat correct. However, the US is already a well-established nuclear power with a large stockpile that's been historically committed to the defense of more than a few notable nations. We have a duty and an interest in maintaining the integrity of that stockpile, and if that means replacing aging weapon with newer more contemporary designs, so be it. We won't be adding any new capability to the inventory, we're just changing the flavor. Other nuclear nations do the same thing on nearly a continual basis. Does anyone really beleive that there isn't an army of Indian or Pakistani scientists working on revising their designs, making them more applicable to the battlefields they foresee in the future? Don't forget that North Korea is another matter entierly. That's introduction of new nuclear capability where there was none before; and that they've not done a whole lot to demonstrate to the world that they'd maintain them in a responsible manner.

To whoever asked on the first page, all a "tactical" weapon is (and I put that in quotations because NOBODY in the military uses the term; it was invented by the media) is a weapon designed to be employed against the enemy's combatants (convoys, marshalling areas, airfields), rather than the manufacturing base or population centers. It has NOTHING to do with yield specifically, although they do tend to be on the small side simply because their missions do not call for earth-shattering blockbusters. There are "strategic" weapons that are smaller than tactical weapons, and one can become the other the instant it is employed in a different role.

modernizing weapons means that you don't keep a 50-year old nuke.
do you drive 50 year old cars or have 50 year old TVs?

not only are they bad quality or not work at all, but theyre fucking dangerous!

As far as the supposedly "tactical" weapons go, I'm not too concerned.

But Stokes tactical nukes and strategic nukes are two different nukes. The former can be used more often, and raises tensions dramatically with other states. This is more then just mere modernization of American forces; this is setting a very dangerous precedent with states like NK, Russia, and China. I would suggest against it personally.

weapon designed to be employed against the enemy's combatants

That’s exactly the problem, they will be used liberally against those combatants. Let’s use a scenario, if the US were to use this tactical nukes on a NK convoy to Seoul, without a doubt NK would nuke SK. Is that responsible? This is going to raise tensions and we will be back to 1983 with the Perishing’s, and SS-20’s all over again.