| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Comments:
<0> Sartak, nice
<1> obscenity can also be the emphasis of the unemphatic
<0> wow. the US only spends about 10x more on it's military than the UK. that's not too shabby. considering we're more than 10x bigger, and 5x the population.
<2> well
<2> the us alone spends more on its military than the entire rest of the world togheter
<3> dont be so sure
<3> israel is not sparing on money :)
<0> ahah.. the us has 40x the land as the uk. so it's no surprise we spend a bit more on our military.
<0> the GDP is only 5x of the UK's though. so that's not really good
<2> the us has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world dozens of times
<2> why do you need that in the first place?
<0> funny how it's proportional to the population.
<0> Viniceos, yea. that's a myth
<2> maybe
<3> why not
<3> keeps the arab on small fire
<2> i couldnt say for sure wheter it's true or not
<4> you can't destroy the world you can kill off a lot of humans which is completely different
<0> Viniceos, we could probably destroy all humans on earth. but we wouldn't be able to actually destroy the earth itself. that takes a phenomenal amount of energy.
<3> sure you can, send a missle to the core of earth
<2> i know that
<2> i'm talking about destroying the human race
<4> acid-: how you gonna do that?
<3> thats a different question
<3> theoretically, its possible :)
<4> the core is a solid piece of nickle and iron like thousand miles across or something
<0> anyways the US reduces it's nuclear stock piles every few years. so i don't see what the complaint is. it's not like the US is going to use any of those weapons.
<4> no bomb is gonna do this tothat
<0> you should worry about Iran, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, France, etc.
<4> this=****
<4> esp france
<2> OrageTide, right before the invasion of iraq, the us was considering the development of more nuclear weapons
<4> if they win the world cup they'll prob launch a couple nukes
<0> acid-, there isn't enough uranium on earth to actually combine to blow up the earth.
<3> iran is the main threat
<0> so it's not possible unless you come up with a different technique for fission
<5> tis last weeks ep
<2> iran and north korea were always the main threat
<3> i think killing the human race is suffice :)
<0> Viniceos, yea. the US wants to replace our stock piles with more tacticle weapsons.
<0> most of the arsenal is good for flattening cities, we actually have discovered we want something more precise than that.
<2> OrngeTide, i guess that means they consider using it
<3> im just waiting for the mossad to blow iran's reactor
<3> we did that to iraq, we can do the same to iran :)
<2> acid-, you're gonna have to wait a few decades to see that
<2> and way before it happens, iran will have a nuclear arsenal
<0> plus the cost of maintaining those weapons as they degrade (we continously have to replace the electronics in them). is getting costly. a new design would enable us to have fewer nuclear weapons in stock yet still have the same capacity.
<0> Viniceos, well i can see the US reducing it's nuclear stock pile in the near future to near zero.
<5> america = nuke, uk = bomb that can blow the testicles off a dog from orbit :P
<3> Viniceos: dont be so sure.
<0> the better threat these days isn't how big your stock pile is, but how quickly you can ramp up industry to produce weapons.
<2> i dont see why they would do that, specially cause they dont allow inspectors in us facilities, just like kim jong ill
<3> Israel can't afford Iran having nuclear power
<3> that will unbalance the whole area
<0> why would we let foreigners in our facilities?
<2> there are too many paradoxes for anyone to buy us government propaganda
<0> i totally don't see why the world things we'd let them inspect us. makes no sense.
<5> OrngeTide: You let them into your bedroom all the time
<0> Viniceos, anyways there is little value in keeping a stock pile. it costs money and it prevents us from having the latest modern weapons.
<2> acid-, once iran develops its nuclear weapons, things will turn ugly to israel
<0> you put two and two together and it's obvious there is incentive to reduce the stock pile
<0> you can easily buy anti-us propaganda and refuse to use logic too. works both ways
<2> OrageTide, then why the hell cant inspectors visit us facilities?
<2> is that logical?
<5> I think the US should reduce it's stockpile by using it on themselves
<2> if you're not manufacturing nuclear weapons
<2> why wont you let inspectors in?
<0> Viniceos, because we don't answer to you.
<2> lol
<2> yeah
<2> you dont answer to anybody
<0> EXACTLY
<2> great
<0> now you are starting to understand.
<3> Viniceos: this is why we wont sit still
<2> so you're in charge of everything
<0> no. we're in charge our own nation.
<3> Viniceos: we can handle war with them _before_ they have nuclear power
<3> things will get much more complicated after they get it.
<2> OrageTide, you're kidding right?
<0> the UN and NATO still directs most of what goes on between nations, but even they are not absolute rulers.
<2> OrageTide, you honestly think its reasonable to deny inspections on your facilities and demand the EXACT same thing all over the world?
<0> yes. it's perfectly reasonable.
<2> OrageTide, is that logical to you?
<2> and that's logical
<2> ?
<0> the US doesn't inspect france's facilities to make sure they aren't producing bombs.
<0> because we trust that france is telling the truth.
<3> Viniceos: lol, thats about power, you got the power, you have the say.
<0> where as iran has lied to the world many many times.
<2> acid-, exactly, it has nothing to do with logic
<4> like all muslims
<0> and the US doesn't threaten to "remove israel from the map"
<2> OrageTide, i agree, iran should let inspectors in. And the us should do the same
<0> honestly it's not really anyone's business that the US makes nukes other than the taxpayers who are paying for those (obviously unnecessary) nukes.
<2> everyone should do it
<2> OrageTide, then how come my country has to let inspectors in?
<6> Yeah. The US doesn't go around threatening. It has actually removed Iraq and Afghanistan from the map.
<3> lol
<2> OrageTide, arent we in charge of our own nation?
<3> dont turn this into a US/EU argument
<0> the US has agreements with other nations to lower the stock piles. of course there are no inspections as part of those agreements. but we know now that both Russia and the US at least did follow the agreements they made in the past in good faith.
<6> acid, Brasil isn't in the EU, afaik. :P
<0> Viniceos, which nation is this? because it depends on which nation you are as to if you're really allowed to be sovreign or not.
<3> KidArt: i think you got my point :)
<2> OrageTide, listen pal, my country has never been in a war, has no intentions to build a nuclear weapon, and we have to let inspectors in
<0> KidArt, iraq and afghanistan are still on the map.
<2> OrageTide, brazil
<2> OrageTide, how come we're not a sovereign nation?
<2> have we lied in the past?
<0> Viniceos, yea. we're mostly worried you might retaliate against venezula because venezula has gone totally wacko.
<3> lol
<2> lol
<3> i like this guy
<0> but mostly there is not really any legtimate excuse to force international inspections against brazil.
<3> lets all face it
<6> I'd participate in the discussion... but I have a problem with the whole nation-state concept to begin with, so that'd be rather futile.
<3> its a matter of power, and for the worlds interest we should nuke iran's nuclear reactor, i think everyone will agree on that.
<7> Die you bastards, die.
<7> Well, give me a job first, then die.
<2> acid-, i agree on that
<0> although the US has stated publically that it trusts Brazil's nuclear intentions.
<2> OrageTide, yeah, still, we have to let inspectors in
<3> eventually WWIII will break
<3> and it will be a nuclear war
<6> aedi, how's that a problem?
<7> how's what a problem?
<3> as time goes by people forget how much damage WW2 caused. and the more we forget the more we come close to such a war.
<0> well it is the IAEA that puts pressure on Brazil, not the US directly. although the US is a main participant they don't really have the main influence in the IAEA, except in cases like N. Korea and Iran.
<0> also Brazil is a board member of the IAEA. so i'm not sure why you are complaining to something you agreed to
<2> OrageTide, i'm just saying its a double standard, some countries are free to reject the inspections, others are not
<0> you are free to reject inspections if you want to suspend UN aid and access to the IAEA.
<2> un aid?
<2> what kind of un aid?
<2> what are you taking about?
<0> in the event of conflict you are protected by UN members.
<2> well, your country is a member of the un and the iaea too right?
<0> yes. founding member.
<2> starting from the premise that there're no double standards
<2> how do you establish which countries have to allow inspections
<0> if the UN pushed hard enough they could demand inspections. and the US could choose between sanctions and allowing inspections
<6> I think it's all those but 5 who are actually allowed to have nuclear weapons by the NPT.
<0> although the UN is fundementally flawed because france, US, UK, etc have veto power. so it really is a double standard for those "first world nations"
<6> but the 5, even.
<0> KidArt, well brazil only wants to use nuclear power, not build weapons. so in my opinion it should be a simple process.
<6> OT, that's what the inspections are for.
<0> although the IAEA is also a safety organization, iirc.
<0> oh that makes sense. we don't need to inspect the US because we already know they have nuclear weapons..
<6> Exactly.
<2> that makes sense?
Return to
#c
or
Go to some related
logs:
libneon females
theenglishmansion wmv
#politics
#beginner
#politics
#computers
#c
#gamedev
#delphi
#freebsd
|
|