Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vilianaean]

• ?????? ?? ????? ??? 2024 by Vilianaean
  [Today at 03:05:10 AM]
• ???????? ? ??????? 2024: ... by Victorgra
  [Today at 01:50:06 AM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:50:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:49:24 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:48:21 PM]
• loli by DonaldStige
  [Yesterday at 06:47:13 PM]

Members

• Total Members: 4940
• Latest: DonaldStige

Stats

• Total Posts: 129570
• Total Topics: 7159
• Online Today: 273
• Online Ever: 1013
• (January 12, 2023, 01:18:11 AM)

[12AX7]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Mumbai-Attacks-Wajid-Shamsul-Hassan-Claims-India-Was-Ready-To-Retaliate-Against-Pakistan/Article/200812115173987?

 Yeh, it won't be long now. The way I figure it, Iran will have nuclear weapons capabilities by around 2010-2011; probably not intercontinentally deliverable missile-wise, but certainly weaponized, and most likely will be more than generous to jihadists. Another terror attack in India, or one in Pakistan with (possibly intentional) Indian fingerprints with a suitcase nuke. . .  and there we go. Nuclear war. Once the strategic munitions start flying; all bets are off on world survival.


 When are we getting the hell outta here, Wunderkind? (I don't shed, BTW. Not much anyway, and I bring my own roll of tape anyway, so...)

[Wunderkind]

Here's my question after having read a few articles about this...

Isn't India just doing what we did with Iraq? Is this one of those situations where the parent tells the kid, "Do what I say and not what I do?" Or have I lost my mind?

Oh, and that's the cutest little mushroom cloud in a timeline I've ever seen.
Beginning of Governments...............................^...My Brain Asplode

[Scheherazade]

Theoretically, we're already on the brink of World War III (which could usher in a nuclear Holocaust).

I mean, if we were to bring charges against the president of Sudan, he has declared he'll go to war with us. That doesn't seem too threatening until you consider that China is backing Sudan - so if this guy gets indicted, we might us well stop worrying and learn how to love the atomic bombs.

[12AX7]

Here's my question after having read a few articles about this...

Isn't India just doing what we did with Iraq? Is this one of those situations where the parent tells the kid, "Do what I say and not what I do?" Or have I lost my mind?

Are you suggesting that us asking India NOT to retaliate is somehow a bad thing? I'm sure you're aware that both countries have nuclear weapons now; and neither government is anywhere near the US or Britain as far as stability- one, in fact, isn't stable at all.
  We DID attack Iraq; but there was no real chance that all civilization would be destroyed. In this case; it's a real possibility.

[12AX7]

I mean, if we were to bring charges against the president of Sudan, he has declared he'll go to war with us. That doesn't seem too threatening until you consider that China is backing Sudan - so if this guy gets indicted, we might us well stop worrying and learn how to love the atomic bombs.

     I missed all that . . .   *rereads article*

  Yep. Still not showing up for me.

[Wunderkind]

Are you suggesting that us asking India NOT to retaliate is somehow a bad thing?

Not at all. I'm suggesting it's cynically humorous for us to to tell another country to not do what we just did. And, when we did attack Iraq, 'we' were under the impression they did have WMDs. However, I wasn't actually including the WWIII hypothesis into it. I was stating my incredulous 'face-palm' moment.

  We DID attack Iraq; but there was no real chance that all civilization would be destroyed. In this case; it's a real possibility.

There's always a real chance of a third world war when one country strikes out agaisnt another in this 'day and age'. This isn't the 1700's anymore. Politics are global and political leaders don't go around saying, "Well, if those colonists want to smack Britian with a broom, that's their problem." No, if we were to have our revolution now, we wouldn't be starting it with meetings in bars, or by dumping tea into Boston Harbor. We would be running to the U.N. crying, "Mummy, those nasty men slapped me with a stamp tax and I don't want to listen to them anymore." If we were whiney or convincing enough, half the planet would descend on the British Isles.

Hell, as much as we've pissed off [insert name of country here] in the last few years, I damn well expect to be waving "hello" to a nuclear warhead at some point in the near future.

/soapbox

Anyway... China is backing Sudan? I missed that bit.

[12AX7]

Hell, as much as we've pissed off [insert name of country here] in the last few years,

 The US being hated isn't new. In fact, we have better relations with more countries now than we ever have in the past.
  Who are you referring to that we pissed off? The closest thing I can think of is Russia; and they're only pissed because we are helping provide a benign defense to countries they can reach with  intermediate nukes; effectivley neutering their nuclear strike threat in Europe.
   

[Wunderkind]

The closest thing I can think of is Russia; and they're only pissed because we are helping provide a benign defense to countries they can reach with  intermediate nukes; effectivley neutering their nuclear strike threat in Europe.

Actually, I wasn't naming anyone specific because I couldn't think of any off the top of my head and I didn't have the time to go hunting names down. But, that example works just fine for me.

[Scheherazade]

     I missed all that . . .   *rereads article*

  Yep. Still not showing up for me.

That's because I have this miraculous talent of reading several articles; furthermore I am able to take related facts and bring them together to form a coherent conversation.

[BizB]

That's because I have this miraculous talent of reading several articles; furthermore I am able to take related facts and bring them together to form a coherent conversation.

geek

[Demosthenes]

Point of information: Iran does not have the technological capability to fabricate a "suitcase nuke".  Any nuclear weapon Iran could make within the next 10-15 years or so would be large, probably somewhat crude, and would need to be delivered either by a truck, a large plane, or a huge rocket.

The notion of a "suitcase nuke" is neat for movies and TV shows like 24, but in all practicality they are very difficult to make, and make reliably.  They'd be far better off strapping a couple of kilograms of that U-235 they're making to some suicide bombers and have them blow themselves up with dynamite.  It'd be a lot cheaper, and far more effective than the resources and technology it would take for them to develop a small, portable nuclear weapon with anything more than half a kiloton yield.

[12AX7]

They'd be far better off strapping a couple of kilograms of that U-235 they're making to some suicide bombers and have them blow themselves up with dynamite.

Ie;, "suitcase" nuke; or "dirty bomb'. I'm not talking about a city-destroying thermonuclear detonation.
  And it wouldn't have to be. As soon as you have any sort of attack that has a high radiation signature in one of those two countries; the other will most likely retaliate.
 (I'm talking about Pakistan and India, btw - not Iran. In fact I believe I even said Iran probably wouldn't have intercontinental delivery by then; except by way of jihadists.) 

[12AX7]

That's because I have this miraculous talent of reading several articles; furthermore I am able to take related facts and bring them together to form a coherent conversation.

Well work on your talent for LINKING articles you're talking about so it doesn't seem as if you read -and are now discussing by yourself- a completely different article about a completely different situation than the thread was about.

 

[ivan]

It'd be a lot cheaper, and far more effective than the resources and technology it would take for them to develop a small, portable nuclear weapon with anything more than half a kiloton yield.

As twisted and inhuman as that chain of logic is, I have no doubt this is exactly the kind of calculus those animals practice.

[Demosthenes]

I'm just sayin'.

[ivan]

I didn't mean to imply YOU are twisted and inhuman.

[Demosthenes]

 

Why not?

[ivan]

Because implying is wimpy when I can flatly state it!

[Vespertine]

I'll go out on a limb and provide an opposing viewpoint.  Shocker, I know.  I, for one, don't believe that we're on the brink of WWIII.  WWIII (and/or some form of nuclear holocaust) would require nuclear exchanges on a planetary scale.  I simply don't believe that the governments of the USA, Russia, China, France, England, India and North Korea would participate on the scale.  Now, I'm not saying that some form of nuclear terrorism is out of the question.  On the contrary, I'm sure that it's going to happen somewhere, sometime.  I'm just not of the school of thought that civilization will end as a result.

[Wunderkind]

Point of information: Iran does not have the technological capability to fabricate a "suitcase nuke".  Any nuclear weapon Iran could make within the next 10-15 years or so would be large, probably somewhat crude, and would need to be delivered either by a truck, a large plane, or a huge rocket.

I just happen to have a truck, a large plane, or a huge rocket in my neighbor's backyard, depending on how you re-assemble the parts.

[12AX7]

I'll go out on a limb and provide an opposing viewpoint. 

You're hardly out on a limb there. More like in the middle of the herd.