| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On May 26 2009 08:32 Zozma wrote: In the event of a nuclear war, I only pray that I can make one "Nuclear launch detected" joke on TL before dying horribly. But no-one would be here to read it. Then it's as if it never happens. If a tree falls in the wood.. does it make a sound? If a man washes a plate without his wife seeing.... did he really do it? etc.. | ||
|
eStoniaNBoY
Switzerland439 Posts
Nice GDP numbers. When oil and gas prices were at record levels. Also "natural resources" full of country lacks the machinery and investments to even get their Oil and metals out of the ground because their infrastructure sucks so bad. That's why they have British Petroleum paying up for Oil rig technology with other foreign investors. That's why they play good boys when economy slumps. To get foreigners to invest to get that Oil and metals out of the ground because it's too difficult for themselves. They usually con the investors afterwards as it has happened over and over again. State takes over the investments because they "haven't payed their taxes correctly". "GDP of Russia $2.076 trillion (2007 est.) GDP growth 8.1% (2007 est.)" Once again nice numbers. When the whole housing bubble and economy bubble in the World peaked with record Oil, metal and gas prices. By these factors the growth was pathetic. Not to mention when growth started to take off Hodorkovski was jailed and YUKOS taken away from him. Oh crap. Did I even mention the TNK- British Petroleum drama? The British Council and british diplomats who were sent back to UK and the one's who didn't get their visa's renewed? Because after forming 50-50% deal they "hadn't payed their taxes"? What a shame... The "Russia Almighty" lost tens of billions of dollars after the Georgian war. Investors fled after being afraid to get "Hodorkovyi'd". Other than stopping Nabucco gas pipeline for a year or two they achieved nothing. There will be NATO military training once again in Georgia soon. Go check it out since I won't bother checking the date. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,574898,00.html Russian economical power during low Oil prices, low gas prices and low metal prices accompanied with Financial Crisis is remarkable! Take a look > ! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7798861.stm Did I mention the Turkmenistan gas? Take a look! > http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1046 Russia just transports it through gas pipelines to Europe. And charges more since Turkmenistan leader happens to be pleased to get corrupt money involved and their country free since if they don't sell their gas to Russia then they would experience "Checnya" or "Georgia". Last time I heard Turkmenistan leader wasn't pleased with the gas prices once again >( Let me quote : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7116218.stm "Russia has agreed to pay Turkmenistan up to 50% more for its gas, Russia's gas export monopoly, Gazprom, has said. Analysts say the increase will push up prices for Ukraine, which has had past disputes with Russia over gas supplies. Gazprom buys almost all the gas exported by Turkmenistan and sells it on to other countries. The higher price will help gas-rich Turkmenistan to speed up construction of a new Caspian Sea pipeline through Kazakhstan to Russia." Do I need to mention the Russian - Ukraine gas disputes that seem to happen during the Winter when termometers show minus degrees? Or that it will cut out Western - Europe from gas? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute Gazprom is in heavy debts and are losing their position with South Stream ( a pipeline making Europe more depending on Russia's gas ). South Stream's opposition is Nabucco gas pipeline going through Georgia and backed by EU and United States ( reason why Russia attacked Georgia and the reason US is so interested in Georgia and is willing to back them this far ) so Russia never really got anything from attacking Georgia. Russia has lost tons of their oligarchs and will do so for a long time since Putin doesn't back most of them. Oleg Deripaska is one of the prime examples how things went for Russia's oligarchs. I won't bother posting more since HnR)hT got the other things right. I'm glad that there are people who can look at things how they are at the moment and are not scared just because of "Cold War" happened to be. The only fear that the world should have is that Russia is not a stable country. There are still Chernobyl type nuclear power plants in Russia and it's known that they need foreign aid to deal with nuclear waste and to disarm their old nuclear and chemical weapons. It's sad though because there are lots of great people there and they have lots of resources. Too bad that these things constantly happen to them Don't bother to exchange dollars to rubles if you go to Russia. I did perfectly fine with dollars only >) | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit. also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu. | ||
|
RedTerror
New Zealand742 Posts
On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote: maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm. the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit. also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu. Well said. Here is a famous oxford union debate our former prime-minister gave http://publicaddress.net/default,2424.sm#post there are some funny and some serious bits. | ||
|
Probe.
United States877 Posts
On May 25 2009 15:00 QuoC wrote: wow, i mean, i don't know much about the world politics and whatnot.. but you SURE know what everyone's thinking, huh? maybe you should run for president. of the world. anyways, i always wondered.. i know we obviously (US) have technologies to detect & stop a nuclear missile (if we don't, i don't know if we can even be considered a powerful country) but as everyone agrees with how we can turn them into a desert within seconds, can't they do the same IF the missile does hit our country and take out half of the states? I mean.. I don't know where all our technologies and whatnot are (I'm sure we hide them pretty well, probably underground somewhere) but once a nuke -no pun intended >_>- hits us and wipes out half of our states (let alone any weapons that gets demolished at that point), won't we basically go from the top of the most powerful countries to the bottom? just wondering. There's no device that can stop a nuclear missle after it has been launched. But basically it takes time for a missle to hit and when we see one or if any country with nuclear missles sees one heading towards them, you better believe they're taking the rest of the world with them when they die. | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote: maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm. the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit. also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu. Yes, because things are as simple as you make them out to be. I could write a 15 page paper on the things wrong with your post, but it wouldn't touch your mindset, so I'll leave it alone. | ||
|
psion0011
Canada720 Posts
On May 26 2009 11:05 Probe. wrote: There's no device that can stop a nuclear missle after it has been launched. But basically it takes time for a missle to hit and when we see one or if any country with nuclear missles sees one heading towards them, you better believe they're taking the rest of the world with them when they die. Literally every single thing you wrote is wrong. | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On May 26 2009 11:05 Probe. wrote: There's no device that can stop a nuclear missle after it has been launched. But basically it takes time for a missle to hit and when we see one or if any country with nuclear missles sees one heading towards them, you better believe they're taking the rest of the world with them when they die. Of course there is such a device, it's just another missile to intercept the larger ICBM. Or a huge laser on a Boeing-747 o_O. These systems aren't perfect, but they exist for quite some time. | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
Taking Kim Jung Il out of power is something I think most people will agree with. It's just a matter of time before he pushes someone (probably China) too far, and he gets taken out. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
of course they should be. i just happen to think that so should all the other countries. my point is that the US isnt in a position to be telling people about their weaponry or military posturing atm. its okay when we do something, its just not okay when they do it. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Their crazy ass government as sauron Nuclear technology as the ring Whoever quit the war as the asshole who didnt destroy the ring Elrond = Japan Boromir = US Gandalf = ? | ||
|
hymn
Bulgaria832 Posts
Yes, Russia is unstable, I don't deny this. But every time Russia's been unstable some stuff happens and somehow unites them and they pull through. Like in 1917 the people grasped Lenin's ideas for good or for bad. Like in 1941 when the Wehrmacht seemed to be unopposed and having fun towards Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad the Red Army successfully defeated them in the course of 2 years cause after the Kursk bulge it has been more of "beat the Germans till they say it's enough" rather than a war with huge nazi counter-attacks and stuff. Like after the USSR collapsed Russian people freely elect Putin. I don't know what for, I guess they are always in the need of a Messiah of a sort. And Putin makes Russia looks as stable as possible IMO. And remember it took Stalin and the CPSU like 23 years to convert Russia from agricultural country to a superpower that dictates half the world what is right and wrong. The price was absurdly high but they did it and that's it. Let's not just say Russia's dying cause fertility can rise pretty quickly with the proper management from the state. As for the investors fleeing after the Georgia conflict - they'll come back, I am sure, profit is too big for them not to. Now, don't get me wrong - I hate wars as a tool of achieving goals but I also understand that military power is essential in achieving those goals. I'd like to see Europe and the Western democracies establish a world order without religious fanaticism and people bombing themselves for beliefs from 1400 years ago. And I don't think the Western world can do this without Russia. And also Russia can't go on forever blackmailing EU with the gas and oil. They have to come to terms with each other. And I believe they will so that small insignificant countries like North Korea, Iraq, Serbia, Bulgaria and etc won't have the option to play big but just accept the terms. I mean - North Korea - a midget of a state, threatening the world with nuclear weapon. WTF?!? I mean - really - WTF?!? Who are they do to this? Governed by a bunch of retards whose only thought is to get that nuclear weapon so that they can blackmail the world. And is someone sane thinking that if North Korea launches a rocket and the US reply, Russia's bombing the US?!? And China bombing the US too? And India? No way IMO. The world would sacrifice North Korea and that's it. Enough offtopic ffrom me.  | ||
zatic
Zurich15365 Posts
On May 26 2009 11:25 Random() wrote: Of course there is such a device, it's just another missile to intercept the larger ICBM. Or a huge laser on a Boeing-747 o_O. These systems aren't perfect, but they exist for quite some time. Haha do you actually believe this stuff works? It's like deflecting a bullet with another bullet. Even in controlled tests where they KNEW the trajectory of the incoming missile beforehand they missed like what 4 out of 5 times? There are a total of It is still a fact: There is no defense against a ballistic missile attack, yet. Doesn't really matter though, as as I have mentioned elsewhere it's completely stupid to deliver a nuke by ICBM for a state like NK. Just ship it in a container and detonate once it's arrived in Oakland. Way easier than building a huge ass ballistic missile and actually launching it without breaking the warhead. If you don't trust UPS with your nukes put it on a fishing trailer and sail down to LA. Plenty of time to press the button should the coast guard board you while you try to enter port. *) EDIT: lol just read up on this, the 10 missiles were installed before there was even one single successful test under somewhat close to realistic conditions. US Navy - your tax billions at work! | ||
|
DarkYoDA
United States1347 Posts
We know a global disarmament of nuclear weapons is the ideal outcome and then on the other hand countries already having these weapons are expected to put away this strong deterrence. Let's be very practical: You are going to have people trying to build nuclear weapons through time. It's a known fact the five nations that retains their nuclear technology only as a matter of deterrence and since it's not one country, but five of them, that's like an "equilibrium" in this matter where they keep each other in check. Allowing one country alone to have it is too dangerous. Based on some of the arguments here, it's so naive to argue this as a validation for N.Korea to develop nuclear weapons. I can tell you if the world is going to end, it's not going to end by a global genocide in the manner the world wars did again because human as a species, only experienced WWII about 60 years ago. We have a precedence to be wary of avoiding the dynamics leading to a WW. However, as a species we've yet to "learn" if we should allow all nations in the world to have nuclear weapons. Our guess is, it's bad for us. Tthere are 200 countries in the world and if we don't control this, one day, before even the universe takes this earth one country will end it for us first. I'd like to see what those who speaks loftily arguments about this again. But then being proud as we are, we as a human race stays proud even when a bomb is landing on our heads. To balance this view, asking any one of the five countries already having nuclear weapons to disarm is also rather impossible because you need all the five countries to disarm and everyone will want to protect their long standing interests. Imagine US being the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons and if they become a tyrant one day it's bad for everyone so some others need to keep them in check, who already have the weapons. Both sides of the coin points to this equilibrium given human nature. p/s: Those who read this post as my advocation of the US having the right to tell people off because they did better, that obviously isn't what I said and you probably missed the essence of my point, which is - No one is going to be "right", in the definition many has given in this thread .This is already somewhat the best way to handle this matter AT THE MOMENT, which balances realism from idealism. Peace out! | ||
|
The Storyteller
Singapore2486 Posts
On May 26 2009 10:13 cUrsOr wrote: maybe the nations without nuclear arsenals should tell them to disarm. the largest military in the world, with hundreds of warheads, and the ONLY history of actually using nuclear weapons on civilians- is now telling them they cant have them. that- is bullshit. also- how many countries had north korea invaded in the last 40 years? how many countries has the US invaded? imo we should stfu. If the US stopped being "hypocritical" I would be shitting myself. It may be easy for Americans to say that the US should be less hypocritical, but as someone in Asia who is uncomfortably close to North Korea, I would much rather the US continue being Asia's policeman. No country without nuclear weapons wields enough power to get North Korea to listen. And of the countries that do have nukes but haven't used them before, Britain, France and India are not exactly in a position to dictate terms to North Korea. That leaves China and Russia... China and Russia handling North Korea and its nukes?! I'll take the US any day! | ||
|
Hiicantpk
Canada72 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.dolighan.com/images/jpgs/may2609.jpg) Enough Said | ||
|
Random()
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On May 26 2009 19:17 zatic wrote: Haha do you actually believe this stuff works? It's like deflecting a bullet with another bullet. Even in controlled tests where they KNEW the trajectory of the incoming missile beforehand they missed like what 4 out of 5 times? There are a total of It is still a fact: There is no defense against a ballistic missile attack, yet. Doesn't really matter though, as as I have mentioned elsewhere it's completely stupid to deliver a nuke by ICBM for a state like NK. Just ship it in a container and detonate once it's arrived in Oakland. Way easier than building a huge ass ballistic missile and actually launching it without breaking the warhead. If you don't trust UPS with your nukes put it on a fishing trailer and sail down to LA. Plenty of time to press the button should the coast guard board you while you try to enter port. *) EDIT: lol just read up on this, the 10 missiles were installed before there was even one single successful test under somewhat close to realistic conditions. US Navy - your tax billions at work! I'm not claiming that US or any other nation is totally protected. It's not exactly a bullet vs a bullet, missile travel time is considerable, they are vulnerable when they are still on the rising trajectory from the launch site, they use rocket propulsion which you can track, etc. so it's technically possible, maybe not quite yet. But yeah, it is very true that unless you want to bomb the whole country at once, there are much more efficient methods of delivery. | ||
|
ParasitJonte
Sweden1768 Posts
As soon as they're in trouble North Korea feel the need to show their "strength". What else can they do? I mean really, do they have any other card to play? I have a strong feeling this will end in talks whereby North Korea is granted some form of aid (food, energy, whatever). It's obviously a strategy that works (it did last time, remember?) and it's the only viable one from their perspective. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Gerald vs herO
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs Solar
Rogue vs MaxPax
ShoWTimE vs TBD
OSC
CranKy Ducklings
Escore
RSL Revival
Replay Cast
WardiTV Map Contest Tou…
Universe Titan Cup
Rogue vs Percival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
