Hypothetical Greek Weapons of Mass Destruction Suck
Pages
| Author | Topic: Hypothetical Greek Weapons of Mass Destruction Suck |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Tuesday, February 27 2007 23:18
Profile
Nuclear proliferation is an extremely tricky subject. Countries such as Iran view the oligarchic association of nuclear-armed countries as hypocritical; the United States, the world's single largest nuclear power, has made a military and diplomatic doctrine of preempting nuclear programs of small rivals. Even as peculiar an example as Japan has talked seriously about starting a nuclear weapons program - in response to Kim Jong-Il's nuclear tests and with prodding from the Japanese neoconservatives, who take a staunchly revisionist stance on Japanese military history and grunt and posture towards Korea as much as the pre-2003 American version grunted and postured towards Iraq. Japan is a paranuclear state, which means that, given the state of nuclear power in the country, the Japanese could build a nuclear weapon within half a year without making a great deal of fuss over it. Shortly after Afghanistan, the US withdrew to extreme controversy and outright loathing in Russia from the anti-ballistic-missile treaty. 'Big' nuclear powers include the US, Russia, China, the UK, and France. Three smaller countries are known to have had nuclear weapons by the end of the Cold War: Israel, India, and South Africa. (South Africa no longer does.) Since the Cold War, two countries have developed nuclear weapons: North Korea and Pakistan. Two countries are widely believed to be in the process of developing nuclear weapons: Saudi Arabia and Iran. Even though the Cold War is over, nuclear weapons are back in a big way; there's no pretending proliferation isn't gonna happen. Is it a bad thing or a good thing? If it's a bad thing, what can be done about it? If it's a good thing, can it work better than the apparent chaotic disorder it works in now? Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, February 27 2007 23:34
Profile
Homepage
The funny thing about nuclear deterrence during the Cold War is that it basically worked -- or at least, it didn't fail catastrophically. On the other hand, it doesn't seem like the sort of thing one wants to rely on in the very long term; one can't help but feel that sooner or later some officer with a stronger sense of duty than humanity, or some leader with fantasies of a winnable nuclear war, is going to be at the centre of the grandest act of pooch-screwing in human history. [ Tuesday, February 27, 2007 23:35: Message edited by: Cryptozoology ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Wednesday, February 28 2007 00:04
Profile
Growing up dreading the Soviet nuking of the Trident Submarine Base in Bangor, WA and Boeing at the end of the Cold War era really really sucked. How on the success meter do we measure entire generations growing up under the spectre of fear, I wonder? If only I had known that all I had to do was "Duck and cover," it might have all been different. -S- -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, February 28 2007 00:28
Profile
There are still people that actively chose to live in regions which are less likely to recieve either nuclear fallout or direct nuclear attack. It does serve to liven up what would otherwise be a fairly moribund real estate market. -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Wednesday, February 28 2007 01:00
Profile
We moved away from the Seattle area in 1980 largely for this reason...which eventually resulted in seven years in Texan exile. Then, bit by bit, we all came to our senses. Except my older brother. He moved back down there and became a Russian Orthodox priest. Note that there is not a drop of Russian blood in our family. I don't understand my brother. Curse those Soviets! Curse them! -S- -------------------- A4 Item Locations A4 Singleton G4 Items List G4 Forging List The Insidious Infiltrator Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Wednesday, February 28 2007 19:01
Profile
I grew up less than half a mile from a Nike-Zeus anti-ballistic missle base in Chicago back when we had them. Then I spent college in Tucson, Arizona being surrounded by 18 Titan II missle silos. You get use to it. Until the Titans got dismantled, a friend of mine kept his telescope pointed at the cover to a silo so he would know when it was time to leave town. The old Cold War had the nukes mostly in the hands of those that viewed them as a last resort since they had enough conventional weapons to fight with. Now you are seeing the rise of countries that see nukes as a way to play with the big boys. Soon everyone has to have them because they don't want to be left behind. The worry is that someone won't care what happens when they get used. They don't expect to be around anyway or they think that somehow they will survive. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 08:40
Profile
quote:Israel has never openly admitted they have nueclear weapons. Yes, most of us believe they have them, but they don't admit it. No offense to Americans reading this, but here the US lost pretty much all the credibility after the "weapons of mass destruction" lie that justified the invasion of Irak. So, if the US government now said that they must invade Iran because of the same reason... I'd join the protests that claim the States to have become an Empire trying to steal oil off the world. It is now not as easy to believe the US government are the "good boys" and Arab countries are the "bad boys" as it was in 2001. :( -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7420
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 09:14
Profile
Homepage
Hmm, I wonder how much oil Chile has... -------------------- You lose. Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 09:21
Profile
quote:Really? Now? I would've thought it'd be sometime here, especially in the '73. Then again we lost ours in 1965. I just love how the US just keeps proving us right though. Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 09:27
Profile
There are no WMD in Latin America so I don't get why you mentioned that, but if you want to discuss it: the alleged support of CIA to the Chileans who planned the coup d'etat was not crucial. They, in fact, sent money that was used for propaganda anti-Allende, but the country was looking to remove Allende with or without US help. Women on the streets threw feathers to the regiments... they wanted the military to act. You could amuse yourself reading why Allende was overthrown (not just ideological reasons...) However, after the coup d etat, Pinochet remained in office for 16 years, completely ignoring the American proposal of only 2 years ;) fortunately we were not invaded and our oil is still ours. greetings. PS: There's more than just Amercan history websites ;) it is well known that information to the American audience is usually filtered. The media does not show everything to the people because it could be too shocking, fortunately in other parts of the world is not necessarily the same. Btw, The list in the website you cited it's incomplete, they forgot Argentina in April 1982 ;) [ Thursday, March 01, 2007 09:34: Message edited by: Marcelo ] -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 09:31
Profile
quote:Oh :D not a lot, we as a matter of fact have to import it :rolleyes: We do produce good wine though, so if you're looking for that, you know where to go ;) -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 10:55
Profile
India is not such a small country, really. -------------------- We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 11:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:The US has a whole lot of oil and still imports, but if ethanol-based fuel catches on then maybe we will be invading for your wine. At least we'll have classy cars. —Alorael, who wouldn't want any old, crummy, beer-based vehicles in his garage, no sir. If he has to drive he'll do it with wine at the very least! Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Guardian
Member # 6670
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 12:07
Profile
Homepage
quote:So... beer is regular unleaded, and wine is premium? :) Anyway, back on topic: how 'bout that Greek Fire? -------------------- I knew I'd hate COBOL the moment I saw they'd used 'perform' instead of 'do'. - Larry Wall Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 12:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:See, this is why you don't mess with the democratic process. If you do it once to kick out a leader who's lost public favour, you might find another, worse leader doing it later to stay in power. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2820
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 13:02
Profile
Ethanol is currently a terrible substitute for gasoline. It contains less energy per gallon, and it sometimes makes more pollution than premium gasoline. The biologically based process of making it is also highly inefficient by any standard. Concerning nuclear proliferation, I think that the spread of nuclear weapons technology is always a bad thing. The Cold War relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction to deter the nuclear superpowers from lighting the powder keg. This is a foolish and dangerous doctrine, which will eventually falter when a country without much to lose decides to start World War III. It may be hypocritical for the US to store thousands of nuclear warheads while denouncing the research and stockpiling of nuclear weapons in all the other parts of the world, but I do not see any other reasonable possibility. The US needs big bombs to ward off big enemies, and letting every country haphazardly pursue nuclear weapons is an even worse course of action. I admit that I am biased to favoring the US, and honestly I would rather have it than China trying to act as an international nuclear technology regulator. Though it certainly has its flaws, I think the current system for nuclear proliferation control is the best we can hope for, at least for now. I forget which science fiction author said this, but the watershed for the next stage of human technological evolution will be the development of a defensive technology that could counteract or withstand nuclear weapons. -------------------- Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are. ==== Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies! ==== Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos. Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 13:23
Profile
Homepage
quote:A technology like that wouldn't be a good thing at all; in fact, it could be positively disastrous. If the first country to get its hands on it were a nuclear-armed rogue state (like, say, the US), it could make pre-emptive nuclear strikes without fear of reprisal. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 13:40
Profile
quote:To further spread the topic of discussion, so that no one person can follow the totality, I would add that government ethanol mandates are playing hell with the ecosystem. Not only is it garbage fuel, it (ZOMG!! I wonder who pushed this legislation) raises the price of feed-corn. Same deal with soybeans and biodiesel. As a byproduct of the price structure adjustment, we see organic produce increasing in price because organic fertilizer prices have doubled. Isn't it time to replace the internal combustion engine? -------------------- quote: Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 13:57
Profile
Homepage
Old Macdonald had a farm, E-R-O-E-I! And on that farm he had some corn, E-R-O-E-I! -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6403
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 14:09
Profile
quote:Unfortunately, thanks to that asinine P.o.S. that has oh-so-little right to be the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, that is no longer true. -------------------- ??? ?????? ???? ????? Posts: 883 | Registered: Wednesday, October 19 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 14:15
Profile
quote:You don't seem to know a lot about Chile-US history during the 60's and 70's. Allende was not "kicked out" because he "lost public favour" (which he never really had, considering he won the elections in 1970 with only 36%). Allende was overthrown because the situation in the country was getting too chaotic, we didn't want to become a new Cuba and Allende was openly Marxist. Also, FYI, a lot of Chileans do not think Pinochet was a "worse" leader, quite the opposite. The country saw a great economic development during the 80's and when he felt the country had recovered from all the damage Allende had caused, he called for elections where he lost to Patricio Alwyn in 1989. However, there were vilations to the Human rights during his government too, but I think that's not what this thread is about though... :rolleyes: If you're interested in this topic, read about Henry Alfred Kissinger doctrines and policies towards, particularly, Chili ;) Greetings. -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 14:19
Profile
[ Thursday, March 01, 2007 14:29: Message edited by: Marcelo ] -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 15:06
Profile
quote:Trujillo wasn't enough for you? :P re. Chile: It's always refreshing to have a good, broad sampling of reactionaries. While Allende didn't have the support of the majority as occurs in executive democracies, the way democracy works in Chile (more parliamentarian) he won that sucker. And Pinochet's programs produced a second US in the south: disproportionately prosperous, but with an exceptional (and an exceptionable) amount of poverty for a first-world country. Part of that is also that once Pinochet got a free hand to marketize the Chilean economy, American finance, which loves a good market dictator, POURED MONEY INTO CHILE LIKE NOBODY'S BUSINESS. Chile immediately became a good investment because its free market policies would produce growth, and then the investments produced growth, which proved the free market policies were good so they continued. Part of why Chile has an unusual amount of wealth (it's at the wrong end of the 'sweet spot' - it's neither got 8 families owning 99% of the land nor has anything like a fair distribution of wealth) is because American hyper-capitalists (who were just getting big in the Pinochet era - look up Milton Friedman and Pinochet) will never pass up a good chance to make the free market look good and state ownership look bad. Whenever 'laboratory conditions' come up, they'll rig 'em like a big pharmaceutical company with a FDA trial. Chile was a splendid example of that kind of rigging. To be fair, that rigging worked OK for the people of Chile - the ones who lived through Pinochet's bloody rule, anyhow. quote:Infernal is technically right, which is as right as she can get. To steer this into on-topic territory (shock!), two things: a) Ethanol is, as we've gone over before, both a non-starter and basically an excuse to subsidize American corn. Nuclear power is a good alternative for it, but proliferation of nuclear plants threatens to increase the abilities of small, diplomatically independent states to manufacture nuclear weapons. (Iran swears up and down its nuclear program is mostly the development of nuclear plants, and I'm at least somewhat inclined to believe them - it's in the best interests of a Middle Eastern state to consume as little gas as possible.) Is the tradeoff worth it? b) This is specifically directed at Infernal, and for once I'm going to try and have a conversation with you without it turning into ideology-based abuse: what good was the policy of deliberate ambiguity really doing? That Israel had nuclear weapons was probably the biggest open secret in international diplomacy, and it seems to me that being intentionally vague on whether or not you have nuclear weapons gives you the worst of both world: opprobrium from anti-nuclear folks and your enemies for being atomic hawks, and lack of the bargaining power possessed by nuclear states and a complete inability to resort to nuclear blackmail. What benefit does deliberate ambiguity (well, did deliberate ambiguity) have? Or, at the very least, what benefit did its proponents claim it had? Not being an Israeli, I know next to nothing about the specifics of the policy and the arguments for and against it; the rest of the world mostly thinks the policy is/was either an example of Israeli silliness or a legal fiction. [ Thursday, March 01, 2007 15:30: Message edited by: Protocols of the Elders of Zion ] Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 16:01
Profile
Homepage
By Marcelo quote:Offense? America's government is corrupt, so why would I be offended. By Marcelo quote:100% true For Example: 1. Proof that the federal government murdered the Branch Davidians in Waco. 2 That about 200 of Clinton's agents vanished during his presidency. 3 Witness who say that he heard Clinton talking about the Oklahoma City Bombing BEFORE it happened. Why is it that people in foreign countries seem to know more about the U.S. government's evils than American citizens do?? By Garrison quote:Its very hypocritical of the U.S to demand that other countries stop research in nuclear weapons. If the U.S has them, why can't they. Anyways, the U.S. is the only nation to have ever used weapons of mass destruction. -------------------- WWJD? Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 3716
|
written Thursday, March 1 2007 16:17
Profile
quote:-Er.. and what was Trujillo's role here? It doesn't ring any bell for me. quote:-Although it's true that economists got American assistance (which is not something "bad") and this group that studied with the "Chicago boys" made great contributions, the "honey moon" did not last long because the US started a public condemn of Pinochet's policy concerning Human Rights and imposed an embargo (Kennedy Amendment was the name I think). They refused, for exameple to sell us spares and parts of American F-5 Northrop fighters when we needed them most (they were purchased in the early 70's during Allende's government... :D ). During the late 70's we almost had a war with Argentina (see Beagle channel conflict 1978) and really hurt not to have had those spares, which we were able to get in the black market for very expensive prices. Israel did help us a lot too. So I wouldn't credit the States' advisory group that much. quote:I can't help but agree, worked more than OK. "Bloody"? that can be discussed (we don't understand why the world is able to recall Pinochet so easily but they can not name any Argentine dictator -- considering there were far larger numbers of disappeared in Argentina than in Chile. Almost every country in south America had a military "junta" in the 70's-80's, that was a part of the big-Bully-in-the-neighbourhood's policy of "you are with us or against us" --the cold war. We always knew that the CIA had been involved in 1973 and the American people only learned that after some files were declassified :rolleyes: so it was no big surprise to hear about this in the 90's, and that brings back what I said before about the filters in American media. Too much off-topic for now :P Greetings. -------------------- "Inspiration comes from hard work" -Charles Baudelaire. Posts: 292 | Registered: Sunday, November 23 2003 08:00 |