bascule Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/10/08/korea.nuclear.test.ap/index.html How does this alter the world landscape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'm tired so I'll keep it short. This -> Japan+nukes -> China upset -> empty Wal-Mart shelves. Not really trying to push the alarmism button, mind you, obviously there's a long road ahead. I just thought I'd cut right to the chase. (grin) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 I'll keep it short too then. I'm thinking less of the Wal-Mart and more of those nukes, in warheads, on missiles... I wouldn't trust N.Korea's leader with a handgun, let alone a nuclear bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 i wouldn't trust anybody with a nuclear bomb. we most definitely aren't ready for them(maturity wise). i already have a hole in my back garden, i could make a steel-lead-steel cover for it if things started to go off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 it`s just sabre rattling, ignore it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 i wouldn't trust anybody with a nuclear bomb. we most definitely aren't ready for them(maturity wise). Ok, so when exactly is any country "mature" enough for a nuclear bomb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 when we're mature enough to not have occasion to use it as a threat and deterrant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 when we're mature enough to not have occasion to use it as a threat and deterrant So what exactly would we use it for then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Well they already apparently had nukes and now we know one of them worked. So it's not really much of a change, they don't have any new capability. It'll probably be some time before they can stick them in a missile. What I think it means is that the US and China will have to work out what to do next. Basically they can keep things going as they are, apply sanctions or negotiate. China will find it hard to apply sanctions and the US will find it hard to negotiate, so we might well end up with a few token guestures and back to the status quo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 So what exactly would we use it for then? terraforming, planetary defense against asteroids, comets and the like. other than that, none. what do we use them for now? nothing. if we don't need them in the future then we won't build them in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 what do we use them for now? nothing. I`de have to disgree with you there, it Does (and has done) serve(d) as a deterant under the MAD principle. it would be Nice if this wasn`t the case, but mans greed/stupidity etc...... precludes this happening now. I`m all for Status Quo! (even though they only knew 4 chords on the guitar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 yes well, i was taking use to be involving the detonation of nuclear devices. the deterrent isn't more than them sitting there decaying uselessly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 yes well, i was taking use to be involving the detonation of nuclear devices. the deterrent isn't more than them sitting there decaying uselessly But they have to work to be a deterrent. I think we are plenty mature enough for great big ole bombs. We have thousands of these things all over the planet and not one has been used. We dropped a couple at the end of WWII, and I personally think that was immature and unnecessary, by I'm not sorry either. Humans have a burning desire to be violent and dominate and we seem to be doing pretty good at not giving in to the ultimate WMD. But we need them too. Because if we didn't have them, the US would already be history and China, or some other nuclear power would be the superpower of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 but we shouldn't need to use them even as a detterent. why the hell are people fighting all over the place? i honestly can't say that i see a perfectly good reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 But we need them too. Because if we didn't have them, the US would already be history and China, or some other nuclear power would be the superpower of the world. or just as likely the other way around! lets not try and sneak in petty prejudices here:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 but we shouldn't need to use them even as a detterent. why the hell are people fighting all over the place? i honestly can't say that i see a perfectly good reason for it. Well I can't say that I see a perfectly good reason for a lot of the behavior amongst the animal kingdom, but it does seem to be part of our genetic predisposition. We've been doing it for millions of years. Actually, all things considered, I wonder if we're becoming less violent now? Or perhaps we've just redirected it to cinema and video games and etc - which could still be considered the first step to shedding our violent tendency. or just as likely the other way around! lets not try and sneak in petty prejudices here Well, sure the other way around. And I don't think supporting my own country is sneaky or a petty prejudice. Since my point originated in the context of "we", obviously implying my petty preference of my own country, I had to be consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 well perhaps you`de prefer, keep it OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE then mounts to the same thing really, Trivia is Trivia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Most importantly, no one can pronounce the word "nuclear"! Dammit Jim, I'm a nuclear engineer, not a nucular engineer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 well perhaps you`de prefer, keep it OBJECTIVE rather than SUBJECTIVE then mounts to the same thing really, Trivia is Trivia. Perhaps you'd prefer keep it Objective. I'll keep it realistic..along with everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Most importantly, no one can pronounce the word "nuclear"! Dammit Jim, I'm a nuclear engineer, not a nucular engineer! You know I grew up with this idea that nuclear and "nucular" were two different things. I grew up in Oklahoma... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 Perhaps you'd prefer keep it Objective. I'll keep it realistic..along with everyone else. if you consider Bias=Realistic fine:rolleyes: but it doesn`t make for a good solid footing in Truth as Objectivity does;) anyway, I refuse to argue with you on this trivia, back to the Topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 if you consider Bias=Realistic fine:rolleyes:but it doesn`t make for a good solid footing in Truth as Objectivity does;) Yes, it's realistic to admit bias. It's self denial and disingenuous to pretend you're objective and thus claim truth. anyway, I refuse to argue with you on this trivia, back to the Topic! but not without getting the last word huh? Look, I actually agree it could go either way, and everybody gets that, and already got that before your worthless post. However, I could be just like you and go through every post and find some stupid little tid bit to get snooty about and pretend like I'm important and insightful, when really it's just distracting and elementary. Let's try to stay on topic shall we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted October 9, 2006 Share Posted October 9, 2006 erm... didn`t I say BACK TO TOPIC once already!??? you`ve provided a Classic example of Why your sort are just as Dangerous, you like the Escalate things, Thnx, you`ve Proven my point for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkangel199 Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 hmm it doesnt surprise me. If i was any country without nukes i would want one just to deter the nuclear capable countries from bothering me. Iraq didn't have nukes, U.S. invaded and put it in chaos. Iran doesnt have nukes (just my guess, maybe they do) U.S. will probably invade them NK has nukes, U.S. wants to see the peace process work out. it looks to me, have nukes, people just talk, don't have nukes, you get invaded if a superpower or their allies dont like your politics or just dont like you in general. No wonder NK wants a working launchable nuke. If not who knows what will happen down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 hmm it doesnt surprise me. If i was any country without nukes i would want one just to deter the nuclear capable countries from bothering me. Iraq didn't have nukes, U.S. invaded and put it in chaos. Iran doesnt have nukes (just my guess, maybe they do) U.S. will probably invade them NK has nukes, U.S. wants to see the peace process work out. it looks to me, have nukes, people just talk, don't have nukes, you get invaded if a superpower or their allies dont like your politics or just dont like you in general.No wonder NK wants a working launchable nuke. If not who knows what will happen down the line. Yeah, dictators and illegitimate regimes just aren't safe anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now