Why on earth would chavs give 2 lumps of excrement over Iran sending a monkey into space. As for Americans, they also don't give a damn about Iran chucking a monkey in space, much more concerned about the nuclear programmer! As should most of Europe, a much closer and easier target for an ICMB than the US.
Iran owns space
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Why on earth would chavs give 2 lumps of excrement over Iran sending a monkey into space. As for Americans, they also don't give a damn about Iran chucking a monkey in space, much more concerned about the nuclear programmer! As should most of Europe, a much closer and easier target for an ICMB than the US.
Most of the west isn't fearful over no military technology. But there are obvious global worries over radical countries like N Korea possessing nuclear weapons.
I guess the worry with Iran and space is it is basically a testing ground for a delivery system for their potential nuclear warheads. If they can get a payload successfully into space then sending a nuclear ICBM into Europe or the US is not far behind.
100% agree. The Iran haters have just fallen for our (western) propaganda.
The worry is squarely on the aristocracy who lovingly pass it on to us, you see if the Commonwealth nations/UN permanent council no longer have the wonderfully pointless non-conflict of Nuclear weapons in their arsenal as a "deterrent", they can no longer push the rest of the world around so easily.
Every time START occurs, it just reminds me of how anally retentive it all is, especially when they never cut it too much, just a nice reminder to the rest of the world that the US and Russia can easily switch off a few of their nukes, yet still capable of total annihilation, total façade.
Of course that isnt the worst problem of rather "disadvantaged nations" getting these weapons, it just happens to be a reason why the latter will (yes WILL) happen.
Nuclear terrorism, its been in the air since the Cold war ended and Russia destabilising causing multiple losses of Nuclear material because the workers needed the money.
Of course it seems nothing ever came of that (from what we see in the public eye anyway), of course everyone knows it will eventually occur, it is like a curiosity that simply needs to be quenched, more so than Nagasaki/Hiroshima.
The term deterrent quickly becomes redundant in the face of this immediate and constant threat, of course when it is a constant threat it just means that we are most definitely on a time limit, probabilities are fun like that.
Unfortunately I believe we are in the century for this to occur, where and when are simply up to a numbers game.
I must explain what i mean by curiosity, i mean the entire population of the species curiosity, it may seem rather macabre, but who could say that they never thought about what would occur of it did happen... that is a dark desire simply for satiation of the mind.
I am believer in destiny in this form, you keep thinking something is going to occur, it likely will.
Of course if we just ignored it completely (impossible, but whatever), it would likely still occur.
/Rambling on i suppose.
Every time START occurs, it just reminds me of how anally retentive it all is, especially when they never cut it too much, just a nice reminder to the rest of the world that the US and Russia can easily switch off a few of their nukes, yet still capable of total annihilation, total façade.
Of course that isnt the worst problem of rather "disadvantaged nations" getting these weapons, it just happens to be a reason why the latter will (yes WILL) happen.
Nuclear terrorism, its been in the air since the Cold war ended and Russia destabilising causing multiple losses of Nuclear material because the workers needed the money.
Of course it seems nothing ever came of that (from what we see in the public eye anyway), of course everyone knows it will eventually occur, it is like a curiosity that simply needs to be quenched, more so than Nagasaki/Hiroshima.
The term deterrent quickly becomes redundant in the face of this immediate and constant threat, of course when it is a constant threat it just means that we are most definitely on a time limit, probabilities are fun like that.
Unfortunately I believe we are in the century for this to occur, where and when are simply up to a numbers game.
I must explain what i mean by curiosity, i mean the entire population of the species curiosity, it may seem rather macabre, but who could say that they never thought about what would occur of it did happen... that is a dark desire simply for satiation of the mind.
I am believer in destiny in this form, you keep thinking something is going to occur, it likely will.
Of course if we just ignored it completely (impossible, but whatever), it would likely still occur.
/Rambling on i suppose.
Urm, relative advantage? Our foreign policy is all about maintaining our relative advantage. If other countries (without our social security, without our demographics and above all without our debt) were able to catch up technologically, we're scuppered.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 4,698
- Location
- Wiltshire
Agreed. However, America has just as much right as any other country to try and stop them.
Agreed. However, America has just as much right as any other country to try and stop them.
Like Israel?
Oh wait.
/pointless statement aho!
The thing these countries that have did so decades ago and most are starting to reduce amount of nuke weapons they have albeit in a half asses fashion.
Sad that there are countries still trying to make nuclear weapons.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
Terrorism during war is still terrorism. It doesn't matter who the perpetrator is. "Surrender or we drop another bomb on your women and children" is pure terrorism.
The first thing the USA did as soon as it got nukes was terrorism.
They pretty much set the record for a single act of terrorism. All sides committed atrocities during WWII but only the losers had to pay for it.
The way I currently see it is that "world peace" can only begin to come about when every country is a nuclear power. Look at the cold war. How many hundreds of millions of deaths were avoided because both sides had their fingers on buttons?
What exactly do people think will happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons?
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
What would Iran achieve by "ICBMing" Europe?
Read his question again, haven't used it to make a weapon.
A lot of those countries have.
For the argument of the US (I love how we say the US when its about dropping the nuke, but the allies when its developing nuclear tech) using nukes on japan. Its a cold hard numbers game.
Works like this, to end the war you have two options:
A) Nuke = end of war, 300k dead (example number) (time taken, 24 hours)
B) invade = end of war, 2 million dead (example number) (time taken. 5-10 years?)
What do you pick?
To be fair though, while i disagree with nukes. It does get you access to the big boys club.
Works like this, to end the war you have two options:
A) Nuke = end of war, 300k dead (example number) (time taken, 24 hours)
B) invade = end of war, 2 million dead (example number) (time taken. 5-10 years?)
What do you pick?
To be fair though, while i disagree with nukes. It does get you access to the big boys club.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,841
A) Deliberately nuke women and children
B) Soldiers fight soldiers, women and children only die accidentally
Plus, do you really think, at that stage in the war, with years of bitterness, POW abuse, Pearl Harbor etc. the US gave a **** how many "Japs" they killed invading? Does that make it OK? Why bother invading Iraq if they could just nuke Baghdad, women and children included? Do you think it's acceptable to trade the lives of paid and willing soldiers for women and children?
Even Eisenhower and Admiral Halsey agreed that the A bombings were unnecessary. You seem to have forgotten that the Japanese at the time were desperately trying to negotiate peace with one measly condition....that they could keep their Emperor....but that's not what it was about to the US who had spent years and vast resources developing the A bomb so someone had to be the guinea pig.
B) Soldiers fight soldiers, women and children only die accidentally
Plus, do you really think, at that stage in the war, with years of bitterness, POW abuse, Pearl Harbor etc. the US gave a **** how many "Japs" they killed invading? Does that make it OK? Why bother invading Iraq if they could just nuke Baghdad, women and children included? Do you think it's acceptable to trade the lives of paid and willing soldiers for women and children?
Even Eisenhower and Admiral Halsey agreed that the A bombings were unnecessary. You seem to have forgotten that the Japanese at the time were desperately trying to negotiate peace with one measly condition....that they could keep their Emperor....but that's not what it was about to the US who had spent years and vast resources developing the A bomb so someone had to be the guinea pig.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 9,707
- Location
- North
So South Korea fired a missile and put some sort of satellite in to orbit apparently... Where is the world condemnation? Pin drop.....
If I'm not mistaken western nations were in uproar and have sanctioned N Korea only a few weeks ago and Iran not long ago?
If I'm not mistaken western nations were in uproar and have sanctioned N Korea only a few weeks ago and Iran not long ago?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,247
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Think about the difference between S Korea, N Korea and Iran then come back with the answer.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Still comes down to propaganda.