Bhutto killed in bomb attack - Page 2

!@#$%! · 12.28.2007, 03:35 PM

so lamont (atari?), are you trying to argue that the current political turmoil in pakistan has no bearing on said country's nuclear capabilities??

SuchFriendsAreDangerous · 12.28.2007, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

al-qaeda + taliban + nukes = no good

really now, is anyone having nuclear weaponry good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i could, but i don't-- beyond the obvious fact that nuke are bad, the threat of retaliation is a deterrent for most conventional states. pakistan and india can growl all they want at each other, but if they go nuclear they both lose.

in the hands of stateless terrorist organizations however, nukes become an asymmetrical threat-- deterrence (mutually assured destruction) no longer applies and all bets are off.

sounds like US pro-nuclear weaponry propaganda... the reality is that if eye for an eye leaves us all blind, then poking out eyes is wrong. possessing nukes is wrong for anyone, and their very creation was the problem, not controling their distribution. nuclear weapons anywhere are a threat to human beings everywhere, regardless of who possesses them.

PAULYBEE2656 · 12.28.2007, 04:45 PM

2 things you dont talk in public about is politics and religion....... the whole middle east thing is proof of that. i shudder to think of what the long term outcome will be for those unfortunate souls who have to live with that day in day out. the world is literally red!

!@#$%! · 12.28.2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

really now, is anyone having nuclear weaponry good?

sounds like US pro-nuclear weaponry propaganda... the reality is that if eye for an eye leaves us all blind, then poking out eyes is wrong. possessing nukes is wrong for anyone, and their very creation was the problem, not controling their distribution. nuclear weapons anywhere are a threat to human beings everywhere, regardless of who possesses them.

the possibility of an eye for an eye (more of a head for a head) is what has kept us nuclear free since nagasaki even at the height of the cold war. goody-goody statements aside (i agree with NO NUKES, if it was possible), the strategic reality is what it is--it's not propaganda, deterrence works in a symmetrical scenario where both parties have a lot to lose.

when one of the nuclear-armed parties has nothing to lose, it's another story.

SuchFriendsAreDangerous · 12.28.2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the possibility of an eye for an eye (more of a head for a head) is what has kept us nuclear free since nagasaki even at the height of the cold war. goody-goody statements aside (i agree with NO NUKES, if it was possible), the strategic reality is what it is--it's not propaganda, deterrence works in a symmetrical scenario where both parties have a lot to lose.

when one of the nuclear-armed parties has nothing to lose, it's another story.

how are we nuclear free in the midst of continuous nuclear arms races? it has never stopped, only paused for a breath. through the 1950s and 1960s, testing and build up, pause mid-70s, then the 80s come back, build up and testing, then 90s pause, and today its all back in the 21st century. we didn't get rid of a thing, deterrence hasn't stopped the killing of human beings in the slightest, if anything the Cold War proxy wars which have continued and revamped in the form of 21st century Counter Terrorism, and yet the exact same dudes are cutting checks and arms to the exact same places as during the cold war..... its all the same shit. nuclear weapons are the vilest evil man created since the blade...

by the way, this so-called deterrence has also forced convential weapons to advance in their destructive capabilities, there are now conventional explosive devices as powerful as the atomic bombs dropped in Japan... so again, how have nuclear weapons contributed to our civilization? they haven't. you should not give them any credit for anything except for death and destruction.

!@#$%! · 12.28.2007, 05:34 PM

sorry by nuclear free i meant FREE FROM BEING BLASTED TO SHIT.

i havent said anything about nukes contributing to civilization.

jeeezus...

im not praising nukes for fuck sakes. but the strategic picture of the nuclear arms race could change in pakistan. right now everyone is afraid of blasting another because they have the same thing coming to them. this could change to a scenario where someone feels free to nuke someone else because they can't be nuked back. can you understand that? that is all.

SpectralJulianIsNotDead · 12.28.2007, 05:51 PM

Terrorist with Solanite Bombs.

SuchFriendsAreDangerous · 12.28.2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

sorry by nuclear free i meant FREE FROM BEING BLASTED TO SHIT.

i havent said anything about nukes contributing to civilization.

jeeezus...

im not praising nukes for fuck sakes. but the strategic picture of the nuclear arms race could change in pakistan. right now everyone is afraid of blasting another because they have the same thing coming to them. this could change to a scenario where someone feels free to nuke someone else because they can't be nuked back. can you understand that? that is all.

your reasoning does not necessarily make sense. just because "extremists" do not possess a "legitimate" territory to defend, does not mean that they would be reckless with nuclear weapons. I'd imagine that such "extremists" would be just as cautious as any other supposed "legitimate" nuclear power. my point is it is reckless period for such things to continue in existence, we already have to explain them to our children, why our grandchildren as well? should we simply accept such a thing?

5Against1 · 12.30.2007, 09:08 AM

I miss the Cold War, as many nukes as there were I never felt real concern that anybody would use them. The Russians were pretty level headed compared to today's religious wackjobs. A mushroom party involving India and Pakistan is a real possibility if Pakistan completely falls apart as is the liklihood that enough material for a dirty bomb will come up missing. Religion sucks, differences in political ideology are much easier to handle.

Lamont Cranston · 12.30.2007, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by !@#$%!
right now everyone is afraid of blasting another because they have the same thing coming to them. this could change to a scenario where someone feels free to nuke someone else because they can't be nuked back.

That could be a possibility in a few years. Missile Defence Shield is not about defence at all; it is aggression, if it ever works it puts the USA in a position where it can threaten First Strike against states that have only a limited conventional or nuclear Retaliatory ability.
I doubt China would continue to be as passive to the Americans provocations as it has been so far.

12.28.2007, 03:35 PM	#21
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,572	so lamont (atari?), are you trying to argue that the current political turmoil in pakistan has no bearing on said country's nuclear capabilities??
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.28.2007, 04:45 PM	#23
PAULYBEE2656 invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: wexford, rep of ireland Posts: 6,930	2 things you dont talk in public about is politics and religion....... the whole middle east thing is proof of that. i shudder to think of what the long term outcome will be for those unfortunate souls who have to live with that day in day out. the world is literally red! __________________ myspace facebook *twitter*
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.28.2007, 05:34 PM	#26
!@#$%! invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: mars attacks Posts: 42,572	sorry by nuclear free i meant FREE FROM BEING BLASTED TO SHIT. i havent said anything about nukes contributing to civilization. jeeezus... im not praising nukes for fuck sakes. but the strategic picture of the nuclear arms race could change in pakistan. right now everyone is afraid of blasting another because they have the same thing coming to them. this could change to a scenario where someone feels free to nuke someone else because they can't be nuked back. can you understand that? that is all.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.28.2007, 05:51 PM	#27
SpectralJulianIsNotDead invito al cielo Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 7,409	Terrorist with Solanite Bombs.
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|

12.30.2007, 09:08 AM	#29
5Against1 bad moon rising Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Canastota, NY USA Posts: 147	I miss the Cold War, as many nukes as there were I never felt real concern that anybody would use them. The Russians were pretty level headed compared to today's religious wackjobs. A mushroom party involving India and Pakistan is a real possibility if Pakistan completely falls apart as is the liklihood that enough material for a dirty bomb will come up missing. Religion sucks, differences in political ideology are much easier to handle. __________________ "...If nothing is everything, then I will have it all..."
	\|QUOTE AND REPLY\|