General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Israel giving up their nukes would (rather obviously) increase the odds of Iran (or anybody else) attacking them, for exactly the same reasons that Iran wants to develop nukes in the first place. There's no possible way it would ever decrease their chances of getting attacked. Iran might get attacked because they're developing nukes, bit of a different story there.

Which is why Pakistan has attacked Israel...
Old 04-03-2012, 06:04 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#301  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
We (as in the U.S.) used a nuclear weapon? Technically, yes...but modern thermonuclear warheads can be up to 4000 times more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan. When put in that perspective, it sounds like a bad idea for these things to even exist...much less proliferate around the world.

Without getting into the rest of the conversation: there is an enormous difference between anything Iran can achieve in the near future and a thermonuclear weapon. There is a TON of technology present in hydrogen bombs that is nowhere near required for regular fission weapons. Which is why vast majority of nuclear weapons out there are still fission.

Also worth noting that thermonuclear physics packages are much harder to deliver, because they are A LOT heavier and bigger.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 04-03-2012, 06:45 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#302  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
Without getting into the rest of the conversation: there is an enormous difference between anything Iran can achieve in the near future and a thermonuclear weapon. There is a TON of technology present in hydrogen bombs that is nowhere near required for regular fission weapons. Which is why vast majority of nuclear weapons out there are still fission.

Also worth noting that thermonuclear physics packages are much harder to deliver, because they are A LOT heavier and bigger.
My comment was for people who like to equate the Bombs dropped on Japan with modern thermonuclear warheads....not because I really know much about it. And even the distant future is too soon for my liking...I would prefer never, and everyone else getting rid of theirs as well.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-03-2012, 06:55 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#303  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
My comment was for people who like to equate the Bombs dropped on Japan with modern thermonuclear warheads....not because I really know much about it. And even the distant future is too soon for my liking...I would prefer never, and everyone else getting rid of theirs as well.

the japanese weapons themselves are not being compared with modern weapons when the argument is made that "us has used weapons of mass destruction as a form of saber rattling, so it has no moral ground to stand on when preventing others from acquiring such weapons". this, and also it's worth noting that weapons like iran is likely to gain actually are almost certain to be very, very similar to the fat man and little boy, simply because it's the logical place to start when developing a weapons program.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 04-03-2012, 07:05 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#304  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST View Post
They could have recruited Saddam Hussein in an anti-terrorist coalition? Well, now I know I'm dealing with someone who isn't just willfully ignorant, but has a case of brain rot.

Saddam Hussein funded suicide bombers. Are you denying this fact? He supported terrorism, and remained in power with a ferocious anti-Americanism that would put yours to shame.
So? American allies have been funding Palestinian "terrorism" for decades. Nearly every muslim nation has funded terrorists at one point or another and major anti American/Western movements are present in most, there wasn't anything exceptional about what Saddam was doing. That's just selective memory to retroactively justify the war.

The US had no problem allying with other dictators in order to attack terrorists and Saddam had a long history of suppressing and killing religious revolutionaries within his own nation. Baath ideology and ruling structure where fundamentally opposed to organizations like Al Qaeda. It's pretty clear that the US and its partners could have cajoled Saddam into their anti terrorism campaign, either covertly or explicitly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST View Post
Everyone knew Saddam Hussein had to be dealt with at some point. It was procrastination on the international community that it took all the way until 2003 to do it. If we didn't do it in 2003, do you seriously believe all these years would have went by without an act of aggression by Iraq? Really?
You could have said the same thing about Qaddafi, yet he was brought into the anti terrorism coalition just the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LLCS GHOST View Post
If you were living under a rock during the late 90's (as many anti-American crackpots seemingly must have been) you should go back and look at what everyone was saying. Look what the Clinton administration was doing and saying. Look at what Democrats were saying. It was by no means some concocted up scheme by the Bush Administration. They just inherited the problem that wasn't effectively dealt with the prior two administrations.
There isn't a fundamental difference between Democrat or Republican ideology when it comes to imperialism so it's not surprising that Clintons policies where very similar to Bushes, he just lacked the ambition and justification (which is 9/11 despite attempts to appear otherwise) to do it.
Old 04-03-2012, 07:14 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#305  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
I agree that at that time (2003) there wasn't an overwhelmingly good reason to invade....but if you aren't a fan of revisionist history, and were paying attention to what was going on back then....the only conclusion is that at some point in time something drastic would have to be done about Iraq.
Why? Iraq was pretty weak at that point and Saddam wasn't insane, Iraq was totally neutered in the position it was in. Anytime he could be of use to the West again they would have declared him "reformed" (assuming he was willing to work with the West again which seems likely). How was Iraq a significant danger at that point?
Old 04-03-2012, 07:19 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#306  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
the japanese weapons themselves are not being compared with modern weapons when the argument is made that "us has used weapons of mass destruction as a form of saber rattling, so it has no moral ground to stand on when preventing others from acquiring such weapons". this, and also it's worth noting that weapons like iran is likely to gain actually are almost certain to be very, very similar to the fat man and little boy, simply because it's the logical place to start when developing a weapons program.
Dropping the bombs on Japan most likely saved many more lives than it took....and I probably wouldn't be here today if they weren't used. (grandfather was on Okinawa with invasion force) But even so, now that we know the true effects (they didn't back then) nothing of the kind should ever be used again.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-03-2012, 07:20 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#307  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmolton View Post
Lots of new DVD movies and video movies will be produced at this time every year. For convenience, all of you want to put them on your own mdia or portable players (It is legal). Tipard Total Media Converter can do both of them: ripping DVD and converting video movies.

Introduce this piece of software in brief. Tipard Total Media Converter can rip DVD to common video formats such as mp4, H.264, wmv, swf, mov, flv, avi, 3gp, mkv and convert video among mkv, mp4, avi, mov, wmv, flv, vob, swf, m4v etc..

If you would like a try, the first thing is to download this program.

Step 1.Click the "Add File" or “Load DVD” button to add video file or DVD.
Step 2. Video settings
Select the output video format you want from the drop-down list of profile or subtitle or audio track.
Note:
By cicking the "Settings" button, you can set the video parameters and audio tract.
step 3.Click the "Start" button to start conversion. It is very fast and in a short while your conversion will be finished.

Tipard Total Media Converter has basically editing funtions such as snapshot, effect, trim, crop, watermark, merging clips into one file and extract audio from DVD and video files.
Take some as examples:

★Watermark★
By clicking “watermark” you can add text or picture watermark for your video according to your need.

★Effect★
Click “Effect” button you can do these actions: adjusting brightness, contrast and saturation of the video. You can easily adjust the video through two windows in the same interface.

★Trim★
If you just want convert a clip of your video, then you can use the "Trim" icon to set the Start time and End time of the clip or you can directly drag the slide bar to the accurate position.

★Crop★
By using the “Crop” function you can crop the black edge of your video and you can also drag the line around the video image to adjust your video to your Google Phone.

With Tipard Total Media Converter you can deal with almost all format coversion. You should feel convenient and easy only installing it on your computer and it won’t affect your computer.

If you are eager for a much bigger suite, there is Tipard DVD Ripper Pack. It is the professional combination of DVD Rip Software, Video Converter and iPod to PC Transfer[/b].
Nice, nice...just one question. Are you or have you ever worked for a Jew?
Old 04-03-2012, 07:21 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#308  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Why? Iraq was pretty weak at that point and Saddam wasn't insane, Iraq was totally neutered in the position it was in. Anytime he could be of use to the West again they would have declared him "reformed" (assuming he was willing to work with the West again which seems likely). How was Iraq a significant danger at that point?
Sigh
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-03-2012, 07:21 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#309  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
So at least you finally admit that all the s your beloved motherland (which isn't good enough for you to live in apparently) does is just peachy with you, but you can nitpick and criticize everything the U.S. has ever done ad nauseum. Ok..

You do realize that the U.S. is far from the only country that doesn't want to see Iran get nukes..right? We weren't even in the lead early on....and with the Obama administration I'm not sure we are now either.

So your argument about Iran has boiled down to "USA isn't the only country who has wasted lives, time and money on stupid invasions"

Yes among others is Germany, France, Spain, England, Sweden, and pretty much everyone else at some point or another. I'm taking this one thing about Iran - which may be in our future - and airing it out for all to see. Every other past conflict in all of earth's history doesn't need to be brought up although lessons can and should be learned
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 04-03-2012, 07:26 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#310  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Dropping the bombs on Japan most likely saved many more lives than it took....and I probably wouldn't be here today if they weren't used. (grandfather was on Okinawa with invasion force) But even so, now that we know the true effects (they didn't back then) nothing of the kind should ever be used again.

What a load of horseshit. Japan had nowhere to go anyway. The bombing was a little cherry on top plus a chance to test some new weaponry "for real"
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 04-03-2012, 07:33 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#311  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Dropping the bombs on Japan most likely saved many more lives than it took....and I probably wouldn't be here today if they weren't used. (grandfather was on Okinawa with invasion force)

this is the position generally accepted in the US, but not everywhere in the world. many historians, most importantly, japanese ones, claim that the japanese surrender was primarily caused by the loss of the kwantung army, and not due to the use of nuclear weapons.

it's an obviously theoretical argument, i just wanted to point out that it is not at all certain that the use of these weapons was either necessary to end the war, or even significant in doing so. despite this being the overwhelming opinion by US historians and general public (the latter, obviously more as a result of propaganda than unbiased historical analysis, but that's expected).

not really relevant to this discussion, one way or the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
But even so, now that we know the true effects (they didn't back then) nothing of the kind should ever be used again.

this is not really true. the exact details were not clear, of course, but they had and excellent idea even back then. the magnitude of the fallout, the energy of the explosion, even the geometry of it were fairly well predicted, to a large degree because of trinity.

i don't think anyone argues, of course, that nuclear weapons should be used, ever again. although it is interesting to note that nuclear weapon use was very much considered, for example, during the Korean war, and even earlier on USSR (to prevent USSR from acquiring the bomb themselves).

i think the bottom line is really this: US did use a nuclear weapon, against largely civilian targets (chosen deliberately for psychological effect - purely military targets were rejected by the Los Alamos target committee, as was the Franck report calling for a demonstration against an inert target first). whether or not this was necessary is debatable, but most definitely not *certain*. it maintains an active weapons program, with not intention to fully give up its arsenal. it has started multiple wars since it was last attacked by a standing military of another country, and at least one war since it was last attacked by a terrorist organization based in another country. as such, it has no moral ground to stand on when calling for Iran to not pursue a weapons program.

that said, it is fully in its rights when using economic pressure to prevent or slow down the iranian program.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 04-03-2012, 07:43 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#312  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Exactly, loads of tests were done. It's literally millions of degrees all around you, what do you think happens? It's a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to find out what the sun is like up close and personal.
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 04-04-2012, 02:26 AM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#313  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
What I meant was that the Manhattan project was such a rush job that that nobody really knew what the lasting effects of a detonation would be...only theories and educated guesses. We now know that nuclear for energy sources is a good thing (if a bit risky) and that any weaponized use has far too many drawbacks to be beneficial to anyone. You can revise history and put any spin you want on it, but who's to say that if you or I were the one with the ultimate decision back in 1945...we wouldn't have done the same?
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/········\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 04-04-2012, 07:56 AM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#314  

LLCS GHOST
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
So? American allies have been funding Palestinian "terrorism" for decades. Nearly every muslim nation has funded terrorists at one point or another and major anti American/Western movements are present in most, there wasn't anything exceptional about what Saddam was doing. That's just selective memory to retroactively justify the war.

The US had no problem allying with other dictators in order to attack terrorists and Saddam had a long history of suppressing and killing religious revolutionaries within his own nation. Baath ideology and ruling structure where fundamentally opposed to organizations like Al Qaeda. It's pretty clear that the US and its partners could have cajoled Saddam into their anti terrorism campaign, either covertly or explicitly.

You could have said the same thing about Qaddafi, yet he was brought into the anti terrorism coalition just the same.

There isn't a fundamental difference between Democrat or Republican ideology when it comes to imperialism so it's not surprising that Clintons policies where very similar to Bushes, he just lacked the ambition and justification (which is 9/11 despite attempts to appear otherwise) to do it.

Saddam Hussein was the only leader of a state to applaud Al-Qaeda for 9/11.

Qaddafi was coerced into giving up his wmd to Bush after we invaded Iraq. Qaddafi made a mad dash to the U.S. to give them up because he was afraid the same thing would happen to him. So it was only because of the Iraq war that that was accomplished.
Old 04-04-2012, 09:32 AM LLCS GHOST is offline  
Reply With Quote
#315  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:50 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.