Nobody Needs Nukes!!! [Archive] - The Diamond David Lee Roth Army

Ellyllions

07-27-2006, 08:11 AM

My husband and I have had a longstanding disagreement about the actual effects of a Nuclear bomb. For some reason he thought that it was just a big boom encompassing a 30 or so miles of destruction with no lingering effects. No matter how hard I tried to convince him otherwise, he stood firm that even if our local Nuclear power plant were to have an accident that it wouldn't be as bad as what I was making it out to be.

Well, fortunately last week the History Channel showed a documentary on the Chernobyl fiasco and to say hubby is a changed man...is an understatement.

According to the documentary, the iron encasing of the Chernobyl plant was only designed to last 30 years and the radiation is leaking out more than it has since it was put in place. We're 10 years out from the deadline.

At this point I'm thinking that Nuclear power is one of those those "we can, but should we(?)" things.

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 08:17 AM

Roth On!

Dead Liberty (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9gnMiVhrshE0nsBiBCjzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NDgyNWN 0BHNlYwNwcm9m/SIG=11uqcuotf/EXP=1154088929/**http%3a//www.bartcop.com/liberty-toe-tag.jpg)

read the toe tag...

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Ellyllions
My husband and I have had a longstanding disagreement about the actual effects of a Nuclear bomb. For some reason he thought that it was just a big boom encompassing a 30 or so miles of destruction with no lingering effects. No matter how hard I tried to convince him otherwise, he stood firm that even if our local Nuclear power plant were to have an accident that it wouldn't be as bad as what I was making it out to be.

Well, fortunately last week the History Channel showed a documentary on the Chernobyl fiasco and to say hubby is a changed man...is an understatement.

According to the documentary, the iron encasing of the Chernobyl plant was only designed to last 30 years and the radiation is leaking out more than it has since it was put in place. We're 10 years out from the deadline.

At this point I'm thinking that Nuclear power is one of those those "we can, but should we(?)" things.

It's a side effect of the ignorance of man and power...i've never been comfortable with it.

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 09:03 AM

This is somehow fitting...

<embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=860038036&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br>Get this video and more at <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=860038036&n=2">MySpace.com</a>

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 09:04 AM

Beware of The Bloodsucker

Dr. Love

07-27-2006, 09:06 AM

psst, no one needs nukes, pass it on. Also if you have VD try not to pass that on. Nobody needs that either.

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 09:32 AM

In parting, I leave y'all with this....

<embed src="http://lads.myspace.com/videos/vplayer.swf" flashvars="m=942185156&type=video" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="430" height="346"></embed><br>Get this video and more at <a href="http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=942185156&n=2">MySpace.com</a>

Peace!

knuckleboner

07-27-2006, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Ellyllions

At this point I'm thinking that Nuclear power is one of those those "we can, but should we(?)" things.

if done safely, nuclear power can be very good.

the pollution from coal-fired plants contributes to deaths of some sick, elderly and young people. to say nothing of the toll on the coal miners.

in the U.S., so far nobody has died from nuclear power (unlike the good Dr's syphilis). 3 mile island didn't kill anyone. although, while our safeguards were not adequate at the time, they were enough to avoid a catastrophic meltdown.

cherynobyl was an example of how to do everything wrong and the consequences. our plants have never been that poorly run. and we've only improved.

LoungeMachine

07-27-2006, 09:54 AM

I've been saying this from day one.

However, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

MY problem, is our hypocritical views on who SHOULD be allowed to have them.....

IRAN cannot be allowed, but PAKISTAN can go right ahead???

And why hasn't more attention been paid to the unaccounted for nukes from the former USSR???

But in the end, WE are the only ones to have actually dropped them on a population, so..........

LoungeMachine

07-27-2006, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Ellyllions
My husband and I have had a longstanding disagreement about the actual effects of a Nuclear bomb. For some reason he thought that it was just a big boom encompassing a 30 or so miles of destruction with no lingering effects.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

No. Lingering. Effects. ???

You guys didn't meet at a Mensa Chapter meeting, huh Ell? ;)

[you're the brains, he fixes things around the house:D ]

knuckleboner

07-27-2006, 01:17 PM

FYI: mind you, some nuclear reactors do kill a lot of people...

cnn.com article stating that the sun kills 60,000 people a year (http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/07/26/health.sun.reut/index.html)

(yes, the sun is really just a big, efficient, and deadly, nuclear reactor...)

BigBadBrian

07-27-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I've been saying this from day one.

However, we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

MY problem, is our hypocritical views on who SHOULD be allowed to have them.....

IRAN cannot be allowed, but PAKISTAN can go right ahead???

And why hasn't more attention been paid to the unaccounted for nukes from the former USSR???

But in the end, WE are the only ones to have actually dropped them on a population, so..........

You're assuming that we can do something about the missing nukes and Pakistan (and India, for that matter) having nuclear weapons.

We cannot, no matter what Kerry said in the debates before the 2004 Presidential election.

Iran is simply unstable and has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons if and when they get them. Please see the article in the thread "Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist" (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35632)

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
But in the end, WE are the only ones to have actually dropped them on a population, so..........

so............WE are in line to reap what we have sown.

The only alternative at this point is Pre-Emptive Strikes against those who wish to posess these weapons.
Is it right?
Hell no it isn't right, but it comes down to this...we either ACT, or we will have to RE-ACT, know what i mean by that?

These times call for an end to our thought's that we can even think conventionally about the enemy that stands poising themselves to wipe Israel off the map...just remember this, WE are seen as part of that Israel they wish to remove from the earth.

You don't even have to read between the lines to understand that.

My main point with this thread was to look at things non-politically, because the politics are futile and i'm glad those who have responded didn't fall into the blame game.

The saddest part is that we will have to use a reluctant military to clean up the mess that 60 years of failed foreign policy has created.
I personally don't think we can clean up that mess.

It has historically been stated that physical WAR only happens when DIPLOMACY breaks down and fails.

LOL, well, people, that Diplomacy went down the shitter a long time ago.
No Democrat OR Repulican can save us with a Patriot Act, or Wire Tap, or Changing the Guard in the White House.

NOTHING ON THIS EARTH CAN SAVE US!.....All we can do is postpone the inevitable by recognizing that those who seek these weapons must be prevented from acquiring them.

Bullies become the Bullied, Or the Dead....Columbine pretty much proved the point that you can only push someone so far before they snap.

The irony in it all is that the end of America as we know it can be brought down by the technology that started it all...WWII technology.

Little Texan

07-27-2006, 05:20 PM

I figured this was somewhat relevant...

Ozzy Osbourne

Thank God For The Bomb

Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Times seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If thats the only thing thats stopping war

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If thats the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Today was tommorow yesterday
Its funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
Ill thank God for wars defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

Ill thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Little Texan
I figured this was somewhat relevant...

Ozzy Osbourne

Thank God For The Bomb

Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Times seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If thats the only thing thats stopping war

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If thats the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Today was tommorow yesterday
Its funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
Ill thank God for wars defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

Ill thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Awesome tune, but written from reflections of a WWII mindset.
It's a different game today, one that everyone WANTS to play.

When war drums beat no more, we'll all be standing by heavens door saying, "Let us in, please!".

knuckleboner

07-27-2006, 05:43 PM

ultimately, a country that wants a nuclear weapon will get one. we can delay that, but it will be very tough to forever prevent them from constructing one.

so, assume we pre-emptively attack a country that's trying to obtain nuclear weapons. are they more or less likely to want to use them against us in the future, if and when they finally and clandestinely get them?

i'm not saying pre-emptive strikes are never justified. but i'd always be, at a minimum, wary of them.

Nickdfresh

07-27-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
You're assuming that we can do something about the missing nukes and Pakistan (and India, for that matter) having nuclear weapons.

We cannot, no matter what Kerry said in the debates before the 2004 Presidential election.

Oh, well, it's okay for a shaky, Islamic state that has factions supporting our enemies in Afghanistan to have nukes then? I guess that's what Bush was saying...

Iran is simply unstable

Not really. The only 'instability' are the student protests and other dissent against the gov't.

and has repeatedly threatened to use nuclear weapons if and when they get them.

Oh really?

Please see the article in the thread "Iran with nukes will be a suicide bomber with a radioactive waist" (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35632)

Yeah, because a high-school drop out and former arts-critic, now political pundit, (Mark Steyn) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn) is a completely qualified and trustworthy source when it comes to writing about Iran's nuclear ambitions...:rolleyes:

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
ultimately, a country that wants a nuclear weapon will get one. we can delay that, but it will be very tough to forever prevent them from constructing one.

so, assume we pre-emptively attack a country that's trying to obtain nuclear weapons. are they more or less likely to want to use them against us in the future, if and when they finally and clandestinely get them?

i'm not saying pre-emptive strikes are never justified. but i'd always be, at a minimum, wary of them.

I'm in total agreement with you, and i hate the fact that we even have to think about striking someone first.

But if we don't, our end will come much sooner.
At this point in time there is nothing we can do to alter the fact that they will have these weapons. and THAT is how we must proceed, with that very much in front of our minds.

Our Great Nation of geniuses and political thinkers have steered us here since WWII.

And Karma's a Bitch...

Nickdfresh

07-27-2006, 06:09 PM

BTW, I certainly do not want Iran to get nukies. But, I am saying that there's time, a possibility that Iran can be persuaded that it's not a great idea, and there's at least a possibility that the Iranians my liberalize their Gov't sooner or later...

And a "preemptive strike" on Iran would have dire consequences for our boys and girls in Iraq (which is another reason to get them out of there ASAP)

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
BTW, I certainly do not want Iran to get nukies. But, I am saying that there's time, a possibility that Iran can be persuaded that it's not a great idea, and there's at least a possibility that the Iranians my liberalize their Gov't sooner or later...

And a "preemptive strike" on Iran would have dire consequences for our boys and girls in Iraq (which is another reason to get them out of there ASAP)

You're right, there is time, but it is limited time.
The mood in the Iranian streets is that most of them don't like where their monies are being spent.
There is a modicum of dissent in the population towards their leader.

THAT must be used to our advantage.
Striking them now would destroy all of that, which being as Bush is in charge...That worries me a bit.

North Korea can sit on the burner for awhile, they are not a threat to the US at all at the moment.

Pakistan and Afghanistan?
I don't have enough info on that to even form an opinion yet.

Nickdfresh

07-27-2006, 06:38 PM

I don't know how DPRNK are any less of a threat to the U.S. than Iran is...

And Iran has some semi-democratic pretensions and a young/student/middle aged population that enjoys scantily clad women, alcohol, consumerist material goods, and some say as to how the asshats are running their country...

But they're also fiercely nationalist...

Cathedral

07-27-2006, 06:44 PM

Iran funds Terrorism, Nick.
That makes them a threat to the entire world when they are the hand that feeds them.

North Korea is a slumb Nation, the only thing they are is hungry and desperate, which is why they want the bomb so they can threaten the world in order to get more aide.

Iran wants the bomb so it can use it.

knuckleboner

07-28-2006, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Cathedral

But if we don't, our end will come much sooner.

oh, i'm not entirely sure our end will ever come.

i OBVIOUSLY don't want any bomb exploding on U.S. soil. but will 1 nuke completely destroy us? i don't think so.

and i honestly don't think it will happen. certainly not in our lifetimes.

after all, if iran gives al qaeda flight training (IF...;)) and they use that to attack us, we're pissed, but we'll deal.

if iran ever gave somebody a nuke and we got hit, you better believe iran knows it would be in for a world of hurt.

iran gets no benefit from giving away their nuke. they get the benefit by keeping it and telling the world (U.S.) to stay out of their affairs or else.

nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. they give a small, weak-armed nation the ability to threaten great harm and pain to the much more powerful adversary.

we would have definitely thought twice, three times, and probably ended up not attacking iraq if we knew they had 1 or 2 existing nuclear weapons.

so do i really care if the so-called bad nations get nuclear weapons? yes. i do. but if they do, i really don't think it spells the end of America. it just changes our foreign policy.

Macu

07-28-2006, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
if done safely, nuclear power can be very good.

WRONG.The radio-active waste and the heat generated from nuclear power plants nullifies ANY benefit from nuclear power.Also,the technology for a nuclear power plant is almost identical to building a nuclear bomb.No has died YET from nuclear power in this country,however,ultimately mis-handled radio-active waste will some day have its consequences.If we had developed solar energy from the same time as fossil fuels,we would live in a cleaner,safer environment today.Of course,solar energy,or ANY alternative energy plans are not allowed to be developed by the powers that be be for many reasons.One is money.Solar energy would benefit many third world countries whose climate is perfect for such an energy program.That would make them stronger and less likely to be exploited.The sun doesnt discriminate.Nuclear power is stupid,simply put.

Cathedral

07-28-2006, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
oh, i'm not entirely sure our end will ever come.

i OBVIOUSLY don't want any bomb exploding on U.S. soil. but will 1 nuke completely destroy us? i don't think so.

and i honestly don't think it will happen. certainly not in our lifetimes.

after all, if iran gives al qaeda flight training (IF...;)) and they use that to attack us, we're pissed, but we'll deal.

if iran ever gave somebody a nuke and we got hit, you better believe iran knows it would be in for a world of hurt.

iran gets no benefit from giving away their nuke. they get the benefit by keeping it and telling the world (U.S.) to stay out of their affairs or else.

nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. they give a small, weak-armed nation the ability to threaten great harm and pain to the much more powerful adversary.

we would have definitely thought twice, three times, and probably ended up not attacking iraq if we knew they had 1 or 2 existing nuclear weapons.

so do i really care if the so-called bad nations get nuclear weapons? yes. i do. but if they do, i really don't think it spells the end of America. it just changes our foreign policy.

Who said anything about 1 Nuke?
I didn't, that's for sure, and i don't expect a nuclear attack executed by terrorists to be in missile form.
Many strategically set off mini nukes all over the country could destroys our economic infrastructure ultimately destroying everyone's happy little lives.
How do you respond to that?

And do you think that if Iran had working missiles it wouldn't lob one right to the center of Israel?
They've already made it clear that is what they want to do.

Don't underestimate the enemy, they chant 'Death to America', and are ignorant enough to use nukes to do it.
How do you reason with people who will strap on a suicide vest?

Let's just say I don't share your optomism, this isn't the early 1980's and the rules have changed since then.

ELVIS

07-28-2006, 02:01 PM

If none of us believe in war
Then can you tell me what the weapon's for
Listen to me everyone
If the button is pushed
There'll be nowhere to run

Giants sleeping giants winning wars
Within their dreams
Till they wake when it's too late
And in god's name blaspheme

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Or the killer of giants
The killer of giants

Mother nature people state your case without its worth
Your seas run dry your sleepless eyes are turning red alert

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Rising so proudly it has nowhere to fall

This killer of giants
This killer of giants

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Oh the killer of giants
Oh the killer of giants

Killer of giants
Killer of giants

:elvis:

ELVIS

07-28-2006, 02:08 PM

FORD

07-28-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
If none of us believe in war
Then can you tell me what the weapon's for
Listen to me everyone
If the button is pushed
There'll be nowhere to run

Giants sleeping giants winning wars
Within their dreams
Till they wake when it's too late
And in god's name blaspheme

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Or the killer of giants
The killer of giants

Mother nature people state your case without its worth
Your seas run dry your sleepless eyes are turning red alert

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Rising so proudly it has nowhere to fall

This killer of giants
This killer of giants

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Oh the killer of giants
Oh the killer of giants

Killer of giants
Killer of giants

:elvis:

You must have listened to Mike Malloy last night when he played that song as "bumper music" ;)

FORD

07-28-2006, 02:21 PM

ELVIS

07-28-2006, 02:23 PM

Then why not let Iran quietly go about their nuclear business ??

FORD

07-28-2006, 02:37 PM

Hey, if it was up to me, EVERY country would be disarmed. Including THIS one. Hell, especially this one, with a rabid chimp at the button.

knuckleboner

07-28-2006, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Macu
WRONG.The radio-active waste and the heat generated from nuclear power plants nullifies ANY benefit from nuclear power.

not quite. i'll give you that the radioactive waste is a concern. but like i said, so is the pollution from coal-fired plants. THAT gets into the general atmosphere no matter what. with radioactive waste, we have, so far, completely contained it.

as for the heat? dude, what do you think power plants do? they produce heat. along with nuclear powered ones, coal and oil-fired plants produce fires that heat water into steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. a nuclear plant's heat does not more harm than a coal-fired plant.

Also,the technology for a nuclear power plant is almost identical to building a nuclear bomb.

umm...no. it's not. in fact, it's very importantly different.

a nuclear plant uses enriched uranium that is not the same as the weapons-grade enriched uranium. nuclear plant fuel will not undergo a nuclear explosion.

now, assuming everything goes wrong and there's a meltdown, yes, a nuclear plant COULD release a significant amount of radiation. but there will not be a nuclear-type shock wave, heat or fireball.

and, again, there are many ways to ensure that a cherynobyl release does not occur. that's why 3-mile island was a meltdown, but with no real radioactive material release.

If we had developed solar energy from the same time as fossil fuels,we would live in a cleaner,safer environment today.

dude, i agree completely. if you're asking ideally, which is better, all things being equal, solar or nuclear power, i'll take solar every time. even if we get cheap and easy fusion power plants. that said, currently, solar power takes a large amount of land and is not readily available in a lot of areas.

so if the choice came down to a nuclear plant, or a coal plant (which currently produces a lot more energy---and pollution---in the U.S.) i'd take nuclear every time.

Of course,solar energy,or ANY alternative energy plans are not allowed to be developed by the powers that be be for many reasons.One is money.Solar energy would benefit many third world countries whose climate is perfect for such an energy program.That would make them stronger and less likely to be exploited.The sun doesnt discriminate.

gotta disagree. we HAVE solar power. and we ARE researching it. should we be doing more? yes. absolutely. but is the reason nefarious? or is it at least partially also due to the fact that existing sources of energy were so easy and bountiful that it didn't make as much sense to spend large sums of money on newer technologies?

Nuclear power is stupid,simply put.

again, compared to what? compared to an ideal (we're not quite there yet) world of cheap and easy solar power? or compared to the world we have were coal-fired plants produce countless tons of pollution into our atmosphere?

ELVIS

07-28-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by FORD
Hell, especially this one, with a rabid chimp at the button.

What do you think would happen to this country If we were unable to defend ourselves ??

Rabid chimp...:rolleyes:

knuckleboner

07-28-2006, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Cathedral
Who said anything about 1 Nuke?
I didn't, that's for sure, and i don't expect a nuclear attack executed by terrorists to be in missile form.
Many strategically set off mini nukes all over the country could destroys our economic infrastructure ultimately destroying everyone's happy little lives.
How do you respond to that?

terrorists won't be able to get a number of nuclear weapons for a very, very, very, very long time. it's not easy to do. and they have to be kept up correctly. not going to happen in your kid's kid's lifetime.

and when (if) it finally does, that will still assume that we don't have the capacity to detect nuclear material.

And do you think that if Iran had working missiles it wouldn't lob one right to the center of Israel?
They've already made it clear that is what they want to do.

no chance. iran knows that israel has something like 15 nukes. given israel's stock response to being attacked, iran knows that if it nukes tel aviv, whatever remaining nukes israel has (and i'm sure they've spread out their supply) will hit every possible iranian city. israel will be devastated by the near destruction of one of its cities. iran, on the other hand, will cease to exist.

Don't underestimate the enemy, they chant 'Death to America', and are ignorant enough to use nukes to do it.
How do you reason with people who will strap on a suicide vest?

Let's just say I don't share your optomism, this isn't the early 1980's and the rules have changed since then.

the guys in charge of the countries have far more to lose. they may chant "death to America" publically, and they may support groups that meddle with us, but they're not going to go risk everything by either directly attacking us with a nuke, or by providing a nuke to a rogue group.

personally, i'd be more worried that a terrorist decided to get a gun and just start shooting people in a post office than i would that he could ever get a functional nuclear weapon, smuggle it into the U.S. and detonate it. (but no, i'm not now, nor am i ever advocating taking away your guns...;))

Nitro Express

07-28-2006, 05:27 PM

Nuclear weapons are just another form of technology. The Germans were the first to experiment with it. The Americans made it a reality. The Soviets quickly copied it. A handful of nations now have it. Pakistahn showed us they could make one in secret and blow it off.

The rest of the world is modernizing. China and India now are driving the price of oil up because they are building modern economies and infastructure. with the rest of the world wanting what we have, it's only a matter of time before more get the bomb and we fight over the scarce resources of the world.

Nuclear technology is her as long as we don't bomb ourselves back into the hunter gatherer stage.

Cathedral

07-28-2006, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
Not to mention that the right nuclear attack or event will turn the US into a police state overnight...

Which makes me wonder, why have the BCE not nuked the US already ??

According to FORD's logic (and copycat Nick) this is a logical step in their quest for ultimate power...

People don't understand exactly how fragile their way of life is to be honest, Elvis. It could actually happen overnight just like you say.
But i don't believe in a BCE or conspiracies as they are presented here.
mainly because if these things were such common knowledge something would have already been done to rid our government of these criminals and murderers.
These things just don't get the support they would if there was any truth behind them.
But hey, if it keeps you from blindly following a politician then it isn't all bad.
And that is my issue with conspirists <--sp?
Everything they come up with is designed to support THEIR side as opposed to proving to them that ALL politicians come from similar molds with the only difference being the badge they wear.

But i'm quite willing and somewhat prepared to defend myself and my family in any event short of death.
That's a small reason i'm leaving the city and opting for the open spaces of the country.

I would have been there years ago if not for certain things i had to take care of here.

But now my life is running under an entirely new dynamic than it was prior to April of this year.

Cathedral

07-28-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
terrorists won't be able to get a number of nuclear weapons for a very, very, very, very long time. it's not easy to do. and they have to be kept up correctly. not going to happen in your kid's kid's lifetime.

and when (if) it finally does, that will still assume that we don't have the capacity to detect nuclear material.

no chance. iran knows that israel has something like 15 nukes. given israel's stock response to being attacked, iran knows that if it nukes tel aviv, whatever remaining nukes israel has (and i'm sure they've spread out their supply) will hit every possible iranian city. israel will be devastated by the near destruction of one of its cities. iran, on the other hand, will cease to exist.

the guys in charge of the countries have far more to lose. they may chant "death to America" publically, and they may support groups that meddle with us, but they're not going to go risk everything by either directly attacking us with a nuke, or by providing a nuke to a rogue group.

personally, i'd be more worried that a terrorist decided to get a gun and just start shooting people in a post office than i would that he could ever get a functional nuclear weapon, smuggle it into the U.S. and detonate it. (but no, i'm not now, nor am i ever advocating taking away your guns...;))

Ya know, i do agree with you on most of your points.
But we're engaged in a single issue, meaning nukes.
It doesn't have to be a nuclear device, it can be several less technological devices that can produce similar economic results.

All they need are people willing to die for their cause, and they have them.

I'm not paranoid and think we're all going to die, we all don't have to die to be brought to our knees and rendered ineffective in this world.
Were getting close to doing that job for them by electing the people we do that keep selling off our interests in the name of greed.

We seem to be dancing around the noose but, if we stick our heads through it someone will kick the stool out from under us.

Our comfy way of life has created a false sense of economic security, much like the Patriot Act does for our physical security.
But one only has to watch market reactions to world events to really start to grasp how fragile things really are here.

Nukes are a threat as long as nutjobs persue them, but we actually have a number of things to worry about economically as well.

FORD

07-28-2006, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
What do you think would happen to this country If we were unable to defend ourselves ??

Rabid chimp...:rolleyes:

Our military did a great job of defending us in World War II.

The problem is that they have been wasting time since then "defending" Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.

Little Texan

07-28-2006, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
If none of us believe in war
Then can you tell me what the weapon's for
Listen to me everyone
If the button is pushed
There'll be nowhere to run

Giants sleeping giants winning wars
Within their dreams
Till they wake when it's too late
And in god's name blaspheme

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Or the killer of giants
The killer of giants

Mother nature people state your case without its worth
Your seas run dry your sleepless eyes are turning red alert

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Rising so proudly it has nowhere to fall

This killer of giants
This killer of giants

Killer of giants threatens us all
Mountains of madness standing so tall
Marches of protest not stopping the war

Oh the killer of giants
Oh the killer of giants

Killer of giants
Killer of giants

:elvis:

I started to post that one, but I posted the other nuclear song, instead. That is a great album by the Ozz...I've been listening to it alot the past week. Very underrated.

LoungeMachine

07-28-2006, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by ELVIS
What do you think would happen to this country If we were unable to defend ourselves ??

:

Assuming you're one of the first taken out, I'm surprisingly okay with it. :D

Cathedral

07-29-2006, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Assuming you're one of the first taken out, I'm surprisingly okay with it. :D

Love thy neighbor, love thy neighbor...

Nitro Express

07-29-2006, 12:53 AM

I often think we have more technology than we have the ethics for. Nukes, cloning, genetic engineering. Man could fuck the world a good one. Oh I forgot global warming if you believe we caused that too.

All I can say is life is short. Make the most of it. If the nukes or terrorists don't get you, something else will.

Death is death. Does it matter if it's delivered by modern weapons or Spanish inquisitors burning you at the stake? Or Romans turning you into lion food. Humans have been killing each other for a long time. We've managed to live with nukes for 50 years so far but everyone now wants the big stick.

Cathedral

07-29-2006, 01:00 AM

I'd burrow my head into the ground if i wasn't so damn tired of breathing completely.

I say kill my ass, spare me from any further bullshit and just get it over with.
I can't be intimidated, so all the threats don't mean shit to me, DO IT ALREADY!

LOL, i'm going totally insane, i know that.

LoungeMachine

07-29-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally posted by Cathedral
Love thy neighbor, love thy neighbor...

Just make sure you when her husband is due home first......;)

Cathedral

07-29-2006, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Just make sure you know when her husband is due home first......;)

Doesn't matter, he can operate the camera.

Macu

08-01-2006, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
not quite. i'll give you that the radioactive waste is a concern. but like i said, so is the pollution from coal-fired plants. THAT gets into the general atmosphere no matter what. with radioactive waste, we have, so far, completely contained it.

as for the heat? dude, what do you think power plants do? they produce heat. along with nuclear powered ones, coal and oil-fired plants produce fires that heat water into steam to turn turbines that generate electricity. a nuclear plant's heat does not more harm than a coal-fired plant.

umm...no. it's not. in fact, it's very importantly different.

a nuclear plant uses enriched uranium that is not the same as the weapons-grade enriched uranium. nuclear plant fuel will not undergo a nuclear explosion.

now, assuming everything goes wrong and there's a meltdown, yes, a nuclear plant COULD release a significant amount of radiation. but there will not be a nuclear-type shock wave, heat or fireball.

and, again, there are many ways to ensure that a cherynobyl release does not occur. that's why 3-mile island was a meltdown, but with no real radioactive material release.

dude, i agree completely. if you're asking ideally, which is better, all things being equal, solar or nuclear power, i'll take solar every time. even if we get cheap and easy fusion power plants. that said, currently, solar power takes a large amount of land and is not readily available in a lot of areas.

so if the choice came down to a nuclear plant, or a coal plant (which currently produces a lot more energy---and pollution---in the U.S.) i'd take nuclear every time.

gotta disagree. we HAVE solar power. and we ARE researching it. should we be doing more? yes. absolutely. but is the reason nefarious? or is it at least partially also due to the fact that existing sources of energy were so easy and bountiful that it didn't make as much sense to spend large sums of money on newer technologies?

again, compared to what? compared to an ideal (we're not quite there yet) world of cheap and easy solar power? or compared to the world we have were coal-fired plants produce countless tons of pollution into our atmosphere?

First of all,you dont solve one environmental problem by creating another.Second,I never said anything in support of coal-fired plants,so please,save me the sermon,you·re preaching to the choir.As far as the heat,I was·nt comparing nuclear power to other power sources,simply pointing out the facts.Solar energy is different in that respect.My point about the technology is not a matter of safety as far as an explosion.It has to do with the production of a nuclear weapon.We can play semantics all day long,however,one that can produce nuclear energy with a power plant is well on the way to producing a nuclear bomb.My point about the developement of solar-power(or alternative power)is still valid.If you believe that the technology doesnt exist for solar power,I think you under-estimate mans ingenuity.Ever hear about the 100mph carbeurator?(sp?)The idea(by the "powers that be")is to use as much energy as possible.They want to use ALL the petroleum.Wanna know why?Because they know history.First there was wood.then they need to switch to coal.Next will be the end of petroleum.Every time there is a switch in power sources,there is a change in the world.Once the petroleum runs out(or at least as we now know it)there will be another change.Use your imagination and see if you can picture a world (or more specifically the U.S.)without petroleum.Nefarious?A nice word in comparison to the reality to come.Do you really believe the U.S. is doing so much in the way of solar-energy?Token efforts.Figure out the solution to the energy situation and be prepared to lose your freedom if not your life.And lastly,I am not trying to compare it to anything.I could go on ,only,I dont have the "energy".A stupid pun,but,are·nt they all?Thanks for the response,bro.

knuckleboner

08-01-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Macu
First of all,you dont solve one environmental problem by creating another.Second,I never said anything in support of coal-fired plants,so please,save me the sermon,you·re preaching to the choir.As far as the heat,I was·nt comparing nuclear power to other power sources,simply pointing out the facts.Solar energy is different in that respect.My point about the technology is not a matter of safety as far as an explosion.It has to do with the production of a nuclear weapon.We can play semantics all day long,however,one that can produce nuclear energy with a power plant is well on the way to producing a nuclear bomb.My point about the developement of solar-power(or alternative power)is still valid.If you believe that the technology doesnt exist for solar power,I think you under-estimate mans ingenuity.Ever hear about the 100mph carbeurator?(sp?)The idea(by the "powers that be")is to use as much energy as possible.They want to use ALL the petroleum.Wanna know why?Because they know history.First there was wood.then they need to switch to coal.Next will be the end of petroleum.Every time there is a switch in power sources,there is a change in the world.Once the petroleum runs out(or at least as we now know it)there will be another change.Use your imagination and see if you can picture a world (or more specifically the U.S.)without petroleum.Nefarious?A nice word in comparison to the reality to come.Do you really believe the U.S. is doing so much in the way of solar-energy?Token efforts.Figure out the solution to the energy situation and be prepared to lose your freedom if not your life.And lastly,I am not trying to compare it to anything.I could go on ,only,I dont have the "energy".A stupid pun,but,are·nt they all?Thanks for the response,bro.

as for the 100mpg carburetor, i don't think it exists. mostly because if it did, somebody would come forward with it. even if the U.S. government refused to patent it, all you'd have to do would be to get it on dateline, or go to the wall street journal. or some other country. the fact that nobody's ever demonstrated one leads me to think it''s because the science and tech isn't there yet.

still, i think there's no doubt that the business community at large is at least somewhat resistant to change. and the government could've helped that out by offering incentives. yet so far, it really hasn't. although the MPG requirements have risen over the years, they haven't exactly gone that high. if the government either poured more direct dollars into better research (for alternative energy or more petroleum fuel efficient engines), created greater tax incentives for private industry to do so, or made more stringent requirements,

and sorry, i didn't mean to imply that you were promoting coal plants. it's just that since we don't currently have the technology for widespread use of solar / alternative power (which you're right, we should be using better) if we need a new power plant today, i'd rather it be nuclear than coal. but i definitely support greater research into alternative sources, so we have a much better choice in the (hopefully near) future.

Macu

08-02-2006, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by knuckleboner
as for the 100mpg carburetor, i don't think it exists. mostly because if it did, somebody would come forward with it. even if the U.S. government refused to patent it, all you'd have to do would be to get it on dateline, or go to the wall street journal. or some other country. the fact that nobody's ever demonstrated one leads me to think it''s because the science and tech isn't there yet.

still, i think there's no doubt that the business community at large is at least somewhat resistant to change. and the government could've helped that out by offering incentives. yet so far, it really hasn't. although the MPG requirements have risen over the years, they haven't exactly gone that high. if the government either poured more direct dollars into better research (for alternative energy or more petroleum fuel efficient engines), created greater tax incentives for private industry to do so, or made more stringent requirements,

and sorry, i didn't mean to imply that you were promoting coal plants. it's just that since we don't currently have the technology for widespread use of solar / alternative power (which you're right, we should be using better) if we need a new power plant today, i'd rather it be nuclear than coal. but i definitely support greater research into alternative sources, so we have a much better choice in the (hopefully near) future.

Its there.When I lived in the States I worked in a shop building race engines.One of the mechanics had some of the "secrets" for it.More interestin was the sdevelopement of fuel injection.Did you know that you can use vegetible oil in a diesel engine?You must start the engine first,then add the vegetible oil.I·ve done it.People here in Europe do it all the time.

Nickdfresh

08-02-2006, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by ELVIS
...

According to FORD's logic (and copycat Nick) this is a logical step in their quest for ultimate power...

Yeah Elvira, I'm such a "copycat." I'll take it as a complement though.

Feel free to show where I "copy" Ford...

knuckleboner

08-02-2006, 12:55 PM

Originally posted by Macu
Its there.When I lived in the States I worked in a shop building race engines.One of the mechanics had some of the "secrets" for it.More interestin was the sdevelopement of fuel injection.Did you know that you can use vegetible oil in a diesel engine?You must start the engine first,then add the vegetible oil.I·ve done it.People here in Europe do it all the time.

yeah, we're just starting to use bio-diesel here in the U.S. supposedly, it requires a conversion that can be done for around $800. but once you do it, you can use purified french-fry oil to power it. of course, we don't have good distribution of the vegetable oil yet to make it practical for most people, so it's still rare.

again though, for the 100mpg carburetor, if that was the case, why has nobody ever built one? the car company that came out with an 80mpg sedan would reap tremendous profits. even if the oil companies could stop me from getting a patent in every country in the world, there's no way they could prevent me from building the engine and taking it on larry king, or oprah.