big mickey Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 We can't disarm the nuclear weapons! We'll need them to protect us from the aliens when they invade!! I think Iran have fucked themselves as for ages they've been at Israel and saying theyre going to wipe the Jews out and all that, so if they're almost capable of doing that then you've got to take it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 I think Iran have fucked themselves as for ages they've been at Israel and saying theyre going to wipe the Jews out and all that, so if they're almost capable of doing that then you've got to take it seriously. Maybe Iran having nuclear weapons would make Israel mosre careful about how they act in the middle-east? That can only be a good thing in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I think Iran have fucked themselves as for ages they've been at Israel and saying theyre going to wipe the Jews out and all that, so if they're almost capable of doing that then you've got to take it seriously. I'm no fan of Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism. But being capable of doing something is different from actually doing it. What about the actual crimes of Israel and the United States? They're no doubt capable of doing much more and probably will do. There's a reason why people in the region overwhelmingly say they'd feel much safer if Iran had nukes. Edited November 24, 2011 by Vice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 There's a reason why people in the region overwhelmingly say they'd feel much safer if Iran had nukes. Exactly. As things stand Israel have nukes, and they know they can basically stomp all over the region because if anyone kicks up a stink their big brother will step in on their behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I'm no fan of Iran but if I was in the position of seeing neighbouring nations occupied by forces belonging to political and ideological enemies while also being threatened by a nation that has form when it comes to attacking other nations then I would be arming myself with anything that could keep them from invading or attacking me, it's common sense. Israel and Israel supporters constantly bang on about being surrounded by enemies (and they are) well Iran are in a pretty similar situation right now and it's been blatantly obvious for years now that American and Israel have been looking for an excuse to attack Iran and if it wasn't for the political fallout following the Iraq invasion I'm almost positive our troops would be "over seeing the transition to a stable democracy in Iran" as I type this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 We can't disarm the nuclear weapons! We'll need them to protect us from the aliens when they invade!! 1) Nuclear weapons produce no blast in a vacuum as their is no air to carry the shockwave. Therefore is just dumps a load of radiation in a rather meek fashion. 2) Any craft travelling interplanetary would have shields to protect against radiation. I know it was just a joke but wanted to throw some science out there for people. Iran needs to be an IMF country like the current 187. These pesky "rogue states" etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Nukes can still fuck you up in space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted November 25, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 25, 2011 Do you even bother reading, or did you just google "nukes in space"? What you've posted backs up what he's said, if you accept his assumption on the necessary correlation between radation shielding technology and interplentary travel. If you're not willing to work from that assumption, again, your link is useless because it doesn't address that question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 A direct hit would still be devastating. The radiation from a blast in close proximity would be far in excess of what most such shields would likely be designed for. And once they got into even the upper reaches of the atmosphere, we'd fuck those little green bastards up. This is a rather silly debate, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted November 25, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 25, 2011 If all we're planing to do is irradiate them, surely there's better ways to do it though? What is the point in the thermic payload* if it's going to have no effect? We need to make our alien killing bombs more efficient, dammit! Back to the lab.. * I don't know what 'thermic payload' means, but it sounds right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) Very likely It'd be a mistake at the moment, overstreched as it is, but Iran is close to developing nuclear weaponry & they do seem the type of chaps who seem like they would use them too Unlike the USA of course. I hope Iran do develop nuclear weapons. They'll need something to deter the inevitable "liberation" by the usual suspects. I'm curious to see if Russia and China would stand by and let Iran be attacked by NATO / USA. There seems to be another Cold War brewing right now with Russia building up defences, due to location of US missiles pointing east in a former soviet country (can't remember name of country, I'll post link from RT when I find it). EDIT: This is the news item: The military measures outlined by President Dmitry Medvedev in response to America’s controversial missile defense system in Europe will be taken within Russia's borders, according to senior Russian MP Konstantin Kosachev. “All the announced measures are being and will be taken by the Russian Federation within its national borders,” he said, adding that it is Russia's sovereign right. “Unlike the USA and its NATO allies, we are not going beyond these bounds,” Kosachev, the chairman of the State Duma Committee on Foreign Affairs, told a media conference. The foreign policy architect added that the actions listed by Medvedev, including Russia's possible withdrawal from the New START treaty, do not violate the country's international obligations. He pointed out that the document provides for such a withdrawal and the president had “only reminded about this possibility” and noted that Russia may use it under certain circumstances. According to Kosachev, the president's statement amounts to a coercive measure. However, he emphasized that to the last, Moscow had tried to avoid a situation where such measures were necessary. Russia urged its American partners to find a compromise on missile defense “when we still had an opportunity to come to an agreement in the sphere of strategic stability.” The Russian side had put forward quite a few options, but Washington declined them all. The measures outlined by Medvedev came in response to actions by the US, which is deploying its missile defense shield in close proximity to Russia's border. If Moscow's measures have their intended effect and are properly understood, “our partners on strategic stability will always have an opportunity to respond, correct their actions” and make sure that further steps are not taken. Kosachev stressed that, in contrast to NATO, Russia's activities are fully transparent. The lawmaker pointed out that Moscow is still ready for a dialogue on the matter and is interested in coming to a compromise rather then entering a situation of confrontation or, even worse, launching a new arms race. Kosachev underlined that Russia does not intend to wind up the “reset” process and block strategic co-operation with the US. “Tango is a dance for two and there is no intention from the Russian side to bring the 'reset' to a close,” he said. Medvedev's statement was made shortly after his meeting with US President Barack Obama at the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation summit in Honolulu. According to Kosachev, it is likely that the talks influenced Russia's stance in any way. An agreement on building the missile defense shield near Russia’s western border may be reached at the NATO summit in Chicago next May. Kosachev warned that this would be “a point of no return, a deadlock situation which would require that measures our president spoke about be taken.” On Wednesday, Dmitry Medvedev addressed the nation, saying that Russia was no longer prepared to wait for permission to participate in the European missile defense project. Instead, it would take defensive and offensive initiatives to protect its people and sovereignty. Misslile defense: no border breaking - includes video. Edited November 25, 2011 by Dynamite Duane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 ^ RT are a good source. Balances the view we get from the distributed press somewhat anyway. I just been watching old vids on wimp and this one was provoking: http://wimp.com/thegovernment/ Is politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Fair enough aaron. Could you please give me a succinct definition of what a corporation is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted November 26, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 26, 2011 I think Aaron clearly needs to be placed under the 'Dynamite Duane Rule' - ie: that if he doesn't reply to shit then he gets suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamite Duane Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 youtube: US and Russain Navy Off Syrian Coast US deploys aircraft carrier off Syria The US has deployed its newest aircraft carrier off the Syrian coast amid mounting speculations of a Washington-led military invasion against the Arab nation. A US naval task force, led by the USS George H.W. Bush, parked off just outside Syria's territorial waters, just after the US embassy in Damascus urged Americans to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts