Which country with nuclear weapons frightens you the most?

[Oerdin]

I would have included China on the list but the communist party seems to have gotten over its period of aggressive expansionism. I suppose invading Tibet, Korea, Kashmir, along with fighting border wars with the USSR & Vietnam, as well as diplo-annexing Hong Kong and Macao was enough for them.

Well, wait a second they still want to reconquor Taiwan (which has been under Chinese control for only about 50 of the last 500 years so it is kind of like Britain demanding Calais back from France) and they sure would like to seize the Sprately Islands but are afraid of the Japanese/American response, and to top it off the number of nukes in the Chinese stock pile keeps growing while every other major power is cutting their stock pile.

[Odin]

1. Pakistan- If Musharif's government falls to fundies we are is seriouse trouble.

2. Russia- if we have a Sum of all Fears type scenario

3. North Korea- Can wipe out Tokyo and Seoul if US diplomats say the wrong thing.

4. India- The radical Hindus (the ones that burn down mosques in NW India) wouldn't hesitate to nuke Islamabad if they had a chance.

[Aro]

I can't sleep since this thread started... Too many nightmare scenarios!

[Carver]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


Military spending, as of 2002, is 3.2% of our GDP.

So, where did you get 60%? Pulled it out of your ass?

And Spiffor, how do people being bigots make them likely to nuke people? Are you implying that our surrent government would actually nuke people, or even invade them for that matter, because we are racists? Jesus.

Before suggesting people are pulling things out of their private areas read the person's post; he said taxes, NOT GDP.

The OMB site http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/tables.html indicates that 48% of discretionary spending goes to defense while 17% of total spending goes to defense.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Aro
I can't sleep since this thread started... Too many nightmare scenarios!

hi ,

well you have two options then , either build a bunker , or move to Israel , ...... ( we can protect the entire population in bunkers )

have a nice night

[Aro]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

well you have two options then , either build a bunker , or move to Israel , ...... ( we can protect the entire population in bunkers )

have a nice night

I'm buying my ticket... Btw, you have to give me your address...

[I Am Jeff]

For all those who are frightend by the U.S.A., I am very curious why you would be worried. The U.S. will not launch a nuke unless it gets hit. The U.S. has no need to use nukes offensivly. For all of you who say, "They are the only ones who used them, so they will use them again." is an absurd argument.

There are many reasons why they dropped the bombs on Japan:
1. it saved lives. A land invasion against Japan mainland would have costed more lives then nukes would.
2. More damage would have been done to Japanese infrastructure. Sure the nukes leveled some areas, but before the U.S. would have done a land invasion, they would bomb the whole island to shambles with conventional bombs.
3. Using the bomb was to show the Soviet Union the power the U.S. had and that they better not mess with the U.S.

Bottom line is that just because the U.S. used nukes before, does not make it more likely to use them again. The U.S. also understands the consequences of using Nukes at all, and especially if it were the aggressor. Bottom line is the U.S. does not want and has no need to use nukes offensivly FOR ITS OWN INTERESTS.

Russia itself is not a threat, they know the consequences, just like the U.S. The threat lies in the many nukes lying around that can be sold on the black market to fanatics. I will go into detail about them later.

China will not use nukes, they may be communist, oppressive, etc. . . BUT they know better then to launch nukes.

Pakistan and India made nukes to scare each other, sort of like the U.S. and U.S.S.R. in the cold war. They both should know better, but you never know.

A lot of people say that Israel were in dire need they would use them. Personally I do not ever see Israel ever in that situation. They get too much support from the U.S. and that is never going to change. Plus Palistine now has a prime minister and soon looks like it will become a nation. It just does not seem like any nation in the middle east will go full force attack, just these suicide bombers and that is no reason to use nukes.

Kim from North Korea also is not a nuke threat. All he wants is U.S. aid from the U.S. and making nukes will help him get it. He knows the U.S. will pay the $$$$.

So the bottom line is that no nation should really frighten you. YOU SHOULD BE FRIGHTEND OF THESE FANATICS. Who cares where they are from. The are not nations and do not care about life. Leaders like Kim care about his own life because he lives like a king. He knows that launching nukes will destroy his life. Fanatics do not care, THEY WILL USE NUKES NO MATTER THE CONSEQUENCE.

[TCO]

Hey Monkspider. If you really beleive that, why not leave? Perhaps you are just a whiney kid.

[raghar]

Originally posted by Oerdin

1. NK- This is clearly an irrational regime which changes its mind every two minutes and who is lead by the Korean equivalent of Michael Jackson.

Kim is not white woman.

2. Pakistan- The government came into power though a coupe and is widely hated, its population is filled with religious extremists who support terrorism, and it has a major historical beef with it's neighbor to the east.

3. Russia- The economy remains piss poor, the people have a sense of national humiliation (just like post WW1 Germany), there is very limited institutional control of the political system (i.e. a dictator could easily make confedy of the constitution and make up his own rules), and they just happen to be sitting on the world's largest pile of fissile material and ICBMs.

I might say India is more possible threat than Russia. India has problem with population and is democratic, this means it is expansionistic.
Tassadar come and defend Russia.


BTW isn't hockey worldcup in these days? Then, why are we chit chating about possible threats? People chit chated about them for over 50 years and would next 4 years too so...

[TCO]

Originally posted by raghar


Kim is not white woman.

Elvis? Howard Hughes? Anyway, check this out to see how wacky he is:

link


Korea's 'lucky' triplets seized

ALL triplets in North Korea are being forcibly removed from parents after their birth and dumped in bleak orphanages.

The policy is carried out on the orders of Stalinist dictator Kim Jong-il, who has an irrational belief that a triplet could one day topple his regime.

The number three is thought to be auspicious in North Korea and triplets are revered. It is believed they are likely to rise to positions of power, which accounts for Kim's insistence that they are all raised in state-run orphanages, where their development can be controlled.

Officially, the policy was introduced to help poverty-stricken parents in a country where hunger is widespread.

But aid agencies and diplomats have dismissed this: triplets born to high-ranking officials are also seized.

"There is no doubt that the policy is compulsory and universal," a veteran Western diplomat told London's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

"It may be officially atheistic and Stalinist, but North Korea essentially operates a state religion infused with superstition, astrology and a personality cult that glorifies Kim as a unique individual.

"You don't take any chances with rivals in that system," the diplomat said.

The children are housed in "triplet rooms", which visitors describe as bare but clean. They are said to receive good foreign-aid food, but none of the love and affection bestowed on most children.

A member of a foreign delegation that visited one such orphanage said they were greeted with a vision of desperate isolation and sadness.

The triplets were placed together in one room, with many of them rocking backwards and forwards in an almost trance-like state.

"Our people were stunned into silence," the delegate told the Telegraph.

A pediatrician who studied evidence from the visit diagnosed severe emotional trauma.

Delegates reported a high standard of care in the triplet rooms.

"But none of those infants knows what affection is," a delegate said. "Our staff tried to cuddle them for a few minutes, but then, of course, we had to leave."

The seizure of triplets is an extension of a policy designed to ensure absolute loyalty to Kim.

The children of all high-ranking government officials are taken from their parents at the age of two and transferred to state-controlled schools where family bonds are broken and devotion to Kim is instilled.

More than 300 sets of triplets are born in North Korea every year and their well- being has raised worries among aid agencies, despite official claims the policy represents an act of kindness.

In a statement to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, North Korea said: "Triplets are supplied by the state free of charge with clothing, bedding, a one-year supply of dairy products and a pre-school subsidy, and special medical workers take charge of such mothers and children and care for their health."

[Kuciwalker]

Wow, that's really... inane

[Aro]

Inane, insane... I'm speechless!

Is this true? (the link isn't working now)

[Alinestra Covelia]

The Brotherhood of NOD.

Seriously, I was playing as the GDI and they nuked me like three times on the same base site.

Even America only nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki once each. I mean, them NOD buggers really don't want to leave anything standing at all.

[TCO]

The triplet thing has been reported by different people. It seems to be true. When I first read it, my first reaction was that it had to be crude propoganda. But apparently Kim really is that wierd.

[Az]

Alinestra:

I guess it's all based on definition. . for example, we at the brotherhood never ***** and moan when you use that "harmless" ion cannon. . I wouldn't even speak of the atrocities GDI commits on the local population in eastern europe.

[Carver]

Originally posted by I Am Jeff
For all those who are frightend by the U.S.A., I am very curious why you would be worried. The U.S. will not launch a nuke unless it gets hit. The U.S. has no need to use nukes offensivly. For all of you who say, "They are the only ones who used them, so they will use them again." is an absurd argument.

Past behaviour is an obvious consideration.

There are many reasons why they dropped the bombs on Japan:
1. it saved lives. A land invasion against Japan mainland would have costed more lives then nukes would.
2. More damage would have been done to Japanese infrastructure. Sure the nukes leveled some areas, but before the U.S. would have done a land invasion, they would bomb the whole island to shambles with conventional bombs.

What you, and many others, fail to realize is that the Japanese had already decided to surrender - at least weeks before the Hiroshima bombing. The Emperor had appointed a new prime minister whose main purpose was to negotiate a Japanese surrender.

3. Using the bomb was to show the Soviet Union the power the U.S. had and that they better not mess with the U.S.

A nation that would use a nuclear weapon for the sake of showing off is indeed scary.

A lot of people say that Israel were in dire need they would use them. Personally I do not ever see Israel ever in that situation. They get too much support from the U.S. and that is never going to change. Plus Palistine now has a prime minister and soon looks like it will become a nation. It just does not seem like any nation in the middle east will go full force attack, just these suicide bombers and that is no reason to use nukes.

Don't take Israel's conventional military superiority for granted. US airpower, and thus Israeli airpower, has held a clear advantage for decades - but the playing field is begining to level. The Eurofighter, which is more capable than anything the US has except for the undeployed F-22, could make its way into Arab air forces. Also the Sukhoi Su-35 is at least a match for the F-15 and is superior to the F-16, this also could wind up in Arab hands. Both these planes can be armed with precision guided munitions and very capable long range air to air missles. And on the ground the proliferation of night vision technology and good, low-cost armor is changing things too. Israel could very well find itself losing a conventional war.

[TCO]

Carver, it is not just about the type of plane. It is about the training of the people flying it. What makes you think the Arabs will suddenly become hotshit pilots after 50 years of being dogshit ones?

And it is really silly when people talk about what might happen with weapons acquisitions in the future. it is typical polytubbie talk by people who have no idea how long it takes for things to move out into the fleet.

[Az]

hmm... Nope, don't see any of that happening, Carver. really. Who can that country be? Saudi Arabia is the only one in any such position.

Israel holds superiority on both land, and air.

[Sava]

Countries I'm worried about with nukes.

1. Pakistan (if fundies take power... )
2. India (want to follow US example of pre-emption SOOOO BAD it's hurting)
3. North Korea (little kid wants to be part of the game)
4. Russia (not concerned about Russia govt, but rather corrupt elements getting ahold of weapons
5. Israel (conventional war goes bad, well... BOOOM)
6. US/China tied

[Carver]

Originally posted by GP
Carver, it is not just about the type of plane. It is about the training of the people flying it. What makes you think the Arabs will suddenly become hotshit pilots after 50 years of being dogshit ones?

Because people and institutions (such as air forces) can and do get better over time. Assuming your opponents will not get better can be very dangerous. There are many dedicated professionals in Arab militaries, of course they want to continually improve.

And it is really silly when people talk about what might happen with weapons acquisitions in the future. it is typical polytubbie talk by people who have no idea how long it takes for things to move out into the fleet.

I don't think talking about future acquisitions is silly; regardless of the uncertainties it remains an important and intriguing topic.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Carver

Because people and institutions (such as air forces) can and do get better over time. Assuming your opponents will not get better can be very dangerous. There are many dedicated professionals in Arab militaries, of course they want to continually improve.

I don't think talking about future acquisitions is silly; regardless of the uncertainties it remains an important and intriguing topic.

1. Arab professionals. BWAHAHAHA. Remember what Moshe Dyan said, "It is easy to look like a great general, when you fight Arabs."

2. You remind me of how stmark or whoever used to talk about how the EU would be better than the US after they added all these weapons. It takes a while to get stuff in the fleet sonny. And don't expect all those programs to make it through. And the Israailis can add better planes as well. Right now they fly F-4's and still wax Arab ass.

[PLATO]

The Israeli's still Fly F-4's????

[TCO]

I thought they did.

[Carver]

Originally posted by GP


1. Arab professionals. BWAHAHAHA. Remember what Moshe Dyan said, "It is easy to look like a great general, when you fight Arabs."

That's an ignorant and untrue comment. I wonder which flag you'll vote for.

2. You remind me of how stmark or whoever used to talk about how the EU would be better than the US after they added all these weapons. It takes a while to get stuff in the fleet sonny. And don't expect all those programs to make it through.

The planes I mentioned already have made it through.

And the Israailis can add better planes as well. Right now they fly F-4's and still wax Arab ass.

The Israelis wouldn't dare take an F-4 into Egyptian, Syrian, Saudi, or pre-war Iraqi airspace without F-15s or F-16s as fighter escort.

Obviously it takes time to make new systems truely operational and time is on the Arabs' side. What I said was don't take Israeli conventional superiority for granted.

[PLATO]

I guess I had just assummed that they bought F-16's along with just about everybody else. I thought F-4's were pretty archaic by today's standards. Interesting.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP
And learn history. I think you can read stuff now. Not like it was 20 years ago.

GULAGs in SU and internment camps for Japanese Americans in USA were aproximately at the same time.

[Serb]

Originally posted by GP


Go play with your mafioso friends.

I don't have friends from Chicago.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Serb

GULAGs in SU and internment camps for Japanese Americans in USA were aproximately at the same time.

Tell that to Sakharov and Solzhenitsen

[TCO]

Originally posted by Carver

The planes I mentioned already have made it through.

Please prove this. They are not in the Arab fleet yet.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Carver

That's an ignorant and untrue comment. I wonder which flag you'll vote for.

It is true that he said it. And it shows great erudition for me to know it and gig you with it.