Jun 23 2006, 3:34 am
In response to Loduwijk
|
|
Crispy
 |
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I'm sure most of the soldiers on the ground are decent people. I was having a go at US military policy, not the people carrying it out. =)
|
CaptFalcon33035 wrote:
I'm pretty sure a fusion bomb would've destroyed the world on extreme contact. And I'm pretty sure that statement could only be true if the fusion bomb in question was many times more powerful than the most powerful fusion bomb created to date. Unless a more powerful one has been created since, I do believe the Russians have the record with a nuclear fusion bomb that was about 50 or 60 megatons. That could not destroy a large country, much less the world. It might be able to destroy a state or a small country though, such as New Jersey or England. That is scary when you think about it though, a single weapon that could take out much of the population of my state. Another thing you have to consider, though, is that not all the destruction from these things is from the initial boom. A localised (well, relatively anyway) area is decimated by the shockwave, then going about twice as far out as that people are burned and combustible materials ignite, and the people closest to ground zero can recieve lethal radiation exposure. Then there can be varying after effects depending on the location it is used, the materials encasing the bomb (depending on those materials, the bomb can be made a "dirty bomb" which spreads radioactive fallout, or it can be made relatively clean so that the fallout is not nearly as bad but still dangerous if you aren't careful), and other factors too. To attempt to create a bomb that could destroy the whole planet is a silly proposition. While it might be possible, the resources to do that would be much more effective if deployed in many smaller, strategically located weapons. After all, who wants to blow up the world with themselves along with it when they could just blow up their enemy's capital and other major cities? Besides, the destruction radius is not directly proportional to the explosion yield. You have to increase your explosion yield by a factor of 10 just to approximately double the destruction radius. Anyway, I just doubt anyone will ever attempt a bomb of the magnitude you speak of. Well, I shouldn't say never, as there are a lot of stupid people out there, and people are always looking for the ultimate secret doomsday device. Heck, for all we know Russia could be just biding its time while it gathers all its resources to create a bomb that could destroy the entire US so that they can have that to hold over our heads, then go back to hating us. Of course, that's just in jest, as they sold the US a lot of their fissionable material when we were helping them to destroy part of their stockpile, which would be counter-productive to such a goal. Anyway, as I was getting at, even the Russians' record bomb would likely only (I use the word only very lightly) kill about half the people in a 50 mile diameter circle. That's a nasty punch that I don't want to see, but still far short of global catastrophe. | |
I've just found my freind 'Dirty Fred's site, this is just the way to sort out the terrorists
http://www.dirtyfred.com/ new/?page=7&clip=balloonbombing&title=Balloon Bombing wmd's at their best | |
Here...
Bush's speech laying out case for war Read it. Quotes from the speech: (1) [T]he Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups... Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. (2) [Iraq] has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people. (3) [Hussein] has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. (4) The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors. (5) The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people ... and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times. (6) Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events. (7) [T]he lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban. Comments: 2, 3, and 5, not to mention 1, are good enough reasons to go to war by themselves. Ousting Saddam was one of the stated goals - He had a choice actually. Disarm and surrender or be deposed. It's interesting that the UN did nothing about numbers 1, 3, and 4 - except defend Saddam. Oh, wait. Iraq and Cuba were on the UN Human Rights Commission together. That's seven reasons. While WMD was a major one, remember that, even if Saddam disarmed his WMD programs after 1991, hich he didn't, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Australia, and many other nations also believed that Iraq had WMD. Bush knew he could afford to make that a major ne because it was true. The reason few weapons were found was that Saddam shipped a lot of the WMD equipment to Syria and more was seperated into small parts and hidden during the buildup to war. The US found a large cache of chemical and biological WMDs (the topic of the thread, no less) and you still think you can get away with (simplified version) "Bush lied about WMDs to go into Iraq for oil." It's also interesting that to this day, it's common knowledge in the intelligence community that Iraq had WMD before the invasion, just like it's common knowledge that Korea has nukes. It's even more interesting that "intellectuals" will deny this despite all evidence. --Vito | |
Baseless? You just discounted a cache of WMD because they're not well maintained! I believe if the US found a Nuke in Iraq it wqouldn't be reported, and anti-war radicals would find a way to discount it. Chemical/biological weapons can still kill people in degraded form. easily.
--Vito | |
Crispy wrote:
Ah, yes. The soldiers being held by their own people. I'm sure the oppressive government that ordered their imprisonment is torturing them daily. With hot irons. They're in solitary confinement, wrapped in chains, not allowed to use the rec area of the prison. G'itmo detainees are not chained, and they are given better food than Army MREs. Not only that, G'itmo prisoners can use the rec area. 2. "All sides' admissions"? Hardly! You admit yourself that the accusations were made. The accusations were made because civilians did die. They were in a house from which a sniper was firing. The marines, by report of both accusers and marines, swept the house in what can be easily seen as a regulation pattern. The fact that they accidentally hit some civilians who were also hiding there was regrettable, but casualties are a fact of war. I'm not going to discuss your assumption that the people at G'itmo are innocent. Some may have been captured in the US, but then, where are all the targets that Al Queda would like to hit? --Vito | |
The US thought Minutemen were effective during tests, so they had a whole lot built and placed in the Northern US. Remember, the fear was a Soviet atttack over the North Pole then.
--Vito | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
(3) [Hussein] has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. And who gave them to him? <small>*coughusacough*</small> The reason few weapons were found was that Saddam shipped a lot of the WMD equipment to Syria and more was seperated into small parts and hidden during the buildup to war. The reason no purple unicorns were found was that Saddam shipped a lot of the unicorns to Syria during the buildup to war. The US found a large cache of chemical and biological WMDs (the topic of the thread, no less) and you still think you can get away with (simplified version) "Bush lied about WMDs to go into Iraq for oil." Biological? Hah. All they found were some old chemical shells that were from before the first Gulf War. | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
Chemical/biological weapons can still kill people in degraded form. easily. So can the ever dangerous Dihydrogen Monoxide. But I guess nobody would report about it either. | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
They're in solitary confinement, wrapped in chains, not allowed to use the rec area of the prison. G'itmo detainees are not chained, and they are given better food than Army MREs. Not only that, G'itmo prisoners can use the rec area. Interesting. I researched this claim and you were correct, however they appear to have loosened the restrictions now: http://go.reuters.com/ newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=12558891 I wonder how long it took for the conditions at Guantanamo to become that relaxed? I'd wager it was longer than a few weeks. However, we'll probably never know because the US wasn't disclosing the conditions in the early days of the prison. 2. "All sides' admissions"? Hardly! You admit yourself that the accusations were made. I haven't researched this yet and I really can't be bothered right now, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. I'm not going to discuss your assumption that the people at G'itmo are innocent. Some may have been captured in the US, but then, where are all the targets that Al Queda would like to hit? Hey! No straw man arguments, please. At no point did I state that everyone being held in Guantanamo was innocent. There probably are some guilty ones. However, it is very likely that there are innocent people in there, and that isn't a mere assumption; it has numerous substantiated allegations behind it. You, along with the current US administration, are assuming that they're guilty when that may not in fact be the case. Many of them were captured by bounty hunters who had every reason in the world to claim that their prisoners were Al-Qaeda members, whether or not that was actually true. Hey, the money was good and the US didn't/couldn't easily do background checks, so why would the bounty hunters not turn civilians? It's certainly easier than capturing real Al-Qaeda members. In any case, there is a certain fundamental principle of law and human rights that comes to mind: Innocent until proven guilty. The detainees at Guantanamo have a right to a fair trial, and they have the right to be considered innocent unless proven otherwise. A behind-closed-doors military tribunal is not a recipe for a fair trial; and certainly the US administration would like us to think that they are all guilty. They should have been tried years ago, by an international war crimes tribunal. Keeping them locked up without trial for this long is criminal, I don't care what you say. | |
Crispy wrote:
They should have been tried years ago, by an international war crimes tribunal. Keeping them locked up without trial for this long is criminal, I don't care what you say. The reason this isn't done is the simple fact that answers this question: "Who is the UN and the international community rooting for in this war for the survival of freedom?" If your first thought is to say "the US, of course," go do some reaserch. Go look up speeches by Kofe Anan, Jacqes Chirac, and other international "leaders." Has any major UN figure (other than the US delegation) come out in support of the Us recently? If some have, they're in a minority. No, if the millitary captures bomb-toting jihadists, they should be tried in US millitary tribunals. (Even better, why don't we treat them like they treat captured soldiers? [/hypothetical] (I'm not actually suggesting that, I'm throwing the situation into sharp relief)) --Vito | |
True. Nuclear testing stopped in the 1970s, I thought. I might be wrong on that, though.
Musta been fun to be the guy pushing the button. [/pyro] --Vito | |
Nope. Fusion bombs have been tested in the desert too, I believe. Remember, fusion bombs do what the sun does, but thete isn't enough hydrogen and helium in matter on earth to keep it going. Plus, the core of the explosion can't keep a stable fusion cycle going because it's not massive enough.
A big boom, to be sure, but the earth would survive it. --Vito | |
Your paranoia disturbs me.
War for survival of freedom? Come off it. War for oil, yes. War for revenge, possibly. War to try and distract voters, maybe. But survival of freedom? Never. There aren't massive quantities of 'terrorists' around the world, and the US isn't the only (Well, a, either) bastion of freedom in the world. I think I'd prefer to live in Sweden then the US. Not that I live in the US currently, but you know what I mean. :P Then you slip into a false dilemma - Hey, UN, you're either with us, or you're part of the evil freedom-destroying terrorists! That's obviously complete crap. I very much disapprove of the US' actions, but that doesn't mean that I want the US to vanish as a country - I just think it could do with a serious political and economic makeover. The UN is similar - they don't 'stand with the terrorists' or any such nonsense - what they want is a peaceful, diplomatic solution, which I think is perfectly reasonable and workable. You can't get rid of terrorism by killing all the terrorists - it just doesn't work that way. Terrorism is a symptom of poverty, war, and injustice. With more international aid, some of the middle-eastern countries from which terrorism tends to spring should be able to pull themselves out of the third-world rut they're stuck in, and that almost always equalises distribution of wealth, ends wars, and, in general, makes the society more just. That's what I'd like to see. Fighting terrorists to end terrorism is like fighting a fire by lighting lots of other fires. It just makes the problem worse. | |
Vito Stolidus wrote:
The reason this isn't done is the simple fact that answers this question: "Who is the UN and the international community rooting for in this war for the survival of freedom?" Your naive black-and-white view of the situation disappoints me. I thought you were more intelligent than that. It is true that the UN doesn't fully approve of the United States' actions in invading Iraq. However, that does not mean that they support Saddam Hussein or Al-Qaeda. (Duh!) You fail to realise that it's possible to disagree with both terrorism and war. I'm not arguing about whether the war was necessary or justified or whatever; that's a separate debate. My point is that the United Nations is not rooting for the terrorists, nor the US government. They're neutral, and that makes a UN war crimes tribunal a perfect choice for trying suspected terrorists. | |
Who are we dealing with?
It's no suprise that the top North Korean has been dubbed "Kim Jong-(mentally)-il". Plus, he thinks the chinese will back him in a war against the US. --Vito | |