DeletedUser
Barak Obame has agreed with the Russians to have only 1,550 nuclear warheads which is a decrease of 30%.
Still enough to destroy mankind.
Debate...or.. Discuss
Still enough to destroy mankind.
Debate...or.. Discuss
Barak Obame has agreed with the Russians to have only 1,550 nuclear warheads which is a decrease of 30%.
Still enough to destroy mankind.
Debate...or.. Discuss
Why did they continue to make nuclear weapons once they reached the point where they had just enough to destroy life on earth.
At that point its just nations showing off but for no real reason since either side has enough to blow everything up :0
That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.it was about the superpowers ensuring that anti-nuke defence would be over-powered.
Still enough to destroy mankind.
First of all, no offense, but this is driving me insane: it's "Barack".Barrack is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, where's the peace?
This is rather comical. How would having enough nukes to destroy mankind make anybody feel safe?
Call me crazy, but I think gravy's on to something. How many people were nuked in the Cold War? A big, fat 0. Why? Because each side knew that if they struck first, the other would retaliate, resulting in mutually assured destruction.I say we make more nuclear weapons so we can feel safer
That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.
OK, I will. Missile launched. Missile detected. Missile eliminated. That doesn't sound too complicated to me.Please explain to me how missile protection system makes you safe?
I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I narrow it down to 2 possibilities:It would either 1) make Russia develop one (back to square one)
That wasn't really an option before the deal was terminated. Now that it is, anything launched ator b) make them launch before one is developed.
Not really. I'm getting tired of explaining how missile defense works, so I'll let Wikipedia take over.A defensive shield is actually an offensive weapon.
Not in the slightest. They're defending themselves, there's no threat in that. If they were making their own nukes,If a rival develops a means to make yourdeterrence useless, wouldn'tyou see tha as a threat?
Perhaps it is, but what's not scloblok (is that Norwegian?) is protecting one's allies in a deal that benefits only your rivals,Also, saying it is to protect against North Korea and Iran (as previous administration claimed) is a load of scloblok.
So you would rather have your allies be nuked than not. You just told me a lot about yourself.Good riddance to a very bad idea.
Exactly. You fail to grasp the arguments.I'm not sure what you're talking about
I thought we were talking about missile defence, and no, they don't have it. THAT'S THE POINT!1. You're talking about missile defense. First of all, I'm pretty sure they already have that.
Yup, that'll be missile defence we're talking about.That could also be a problem today, since Barak Obame scrapped our missile protection deal with Poland and Czech Republic. Now neither country is safe, but the Russians are happy about it, which apparently satisfies Mr. Obame more.
You're going to have to make your point again I'm afraid as I genuinely don't understand these sentences.Second of all, even if they didn't, your argument appears to be that they would build one. Way to go, Sherlock Holmes!
Besides we don't to nuke them anyway, do we?
Have you been drinking? Do you seriously think that I believe Russia will be developing nukes?2. You're talking about nukes. The Russians have a lot of nukes as is. I mean, a lot of nukes.
I really don't see how you can make an argument out of that.
Apart from the fact that it doesn't demonstrably work, you argue that the Russians wouldn't launch before the shield was devised. So tell me what is the need for it?That wasn't really an option before the deal was terminated. Now that it is, anything launched at Czech Republic or Poland will have little chance of being intercepted.
Try taking some ginseng for your tiredness. I know exactly what I am talking about. I know what offence and defence are and I understand how circumventing MAD with the Russians is even more dangerous than MAD itself.Not really. I'm getting tired of explaining how missile defense works, so I'll let Wikipedia take over.
Sorry, you've lost me again here. We're talking about Russia, the largest global nuclear power.Not in the slightest. They're defending themselves, there's no threat in that. If they were making their own nukes,
I would take that as a threat.
Firstly, I'm more likely to be nuked than you as I am a European.Perhaps it is, but what's not scloblok (is that Norwegian? - anagram) is protecting one's allies in a deal that benefits only your rivals,
and enrages your allies. Truly, the Poles and Czechs are not happy about this.......So you would rather have your allies be nuked than not. You just told me a lot about yourself.
*Faceplant* Did you not read my Wikipedia article? Or do any research at all?I thought we were talking about missile defence, and no, they don't have it. THAT'S THE POINT!
OK, let's try this: If you were the president of Russia, would you buildYou're going to have to make your point again I'm afraid as I genuinely don't understand these sentences.
Whether or not they are developing nukes is irrelevant. The question isHave you been drinking? Do you seriously think that I believe Russia will be developing nukes?
Clearly, you have zero understanding of the topic. First off, there is noApart from the fact that it doesn't demonstrably work, you argue that the Russians wouldn't launch before the shield was devised. So tell me what is the need for it?
Ginseng? That's the first good idea you've had this entire discussion. YouTry taking some ginseng for your tiredness. I know exactly what I am talking about. I know what offence and defence are and I understand how circumventing MAD with the Russians is even more dangerous than MAD itself.
I was answering your question, from the perspective you told me to take.Sorry, you've lost me again here. We're talking about Russia, the largest global nuclear power.
Yeah, I kind of figured you were Russian.Firstly, I'm more likely to be nuked than you as I am a European.
Perhaps it is, but that is not remotely the point of this discussion. TheSecondly, the nuclear threat is more likely to be terrorist-based rather than from an ICBM.
Not exactly. Let me try to explain in a way you might understand:Thirdly, the only argument (and the one being made by the US) is to the threat from Iran and North Korea.
Another bright, shining example of your failure to comprehend the differenceEven if it did work (a big if), it is threatening the largest nuclear power. I'm sorry that you can't see that. Maybe if the US agreed to share it with the Russians against these "rogue states", how would that do?
*Faceplant* Did you not read my Wikipedia article? Or do any research at all? Russia not only has missile defenses, but has ever since the days of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, if you read the article, you would know that the Soviets
demonstrated a successful anti-ICBM system in 1961. That's 49 years ago,
since I doubt you can be bothered to do math. Surely, anti-missile technology has only improved since then.
Actually, NO SANE COUNTRY would unless a rival decided to obsolete that country's defence (i.e. via Mutually assured destruction).OK, let's try this: If you were the president of Russia, would you build missile defense systems if you had none? Any sane ruler would.
Actually I understand completely how the US doesn't want to nuke Russia, I'm just not sure you don't want to......And you don't understand that we don't want to nuke Russia? Go back to kindergarten.
Whether or not they are developing nukes is irrelevant. The question is whether they already have nukes.
Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of 1 wikipedia article that you have mis-interpreted.:laugh:Clearly, you have zero understanding of the topic.
First off, there is no
literal shield. I thought you read my wikipedia article. Evidently I was
wrong. Second of all, if the Russians don't attack before the system is
online, then they're thwarted.
No, I said that Russia was not developing nukes. You know, like they already have them. As for their STAR WARS programme, I'm sure they are racing to get that one sorted.I was answering your question, from the perspective you told me to take.
Besides, didn't you claim that the Russians had no nuclear program a
little while back?
The closest I've gotten to being Russian is drinking Smirnoff.Yeah, I kind of figured you were Russian.
What happened to N Korea and Iran? :laugh:Perhaps it is, but that is not remotely the point of this discussion. The purpose of the missile defense system was to protect against the threat from Russia, which is far more likely to use ICBMs.
Let me try to explain in a way a monkey might understand. Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke WE ALL SCREWED.Not exactly. Let me try to explain in a way you might understand:
Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke, Poland and Czech Republic screwed.
Yes of course, I totally failed to see that a missile defence system was not aimed at bringing down ICBMs launched offensively at a country/countries. Yeah I totally don't get it. It's like whatever man. I mean I'm totally bogus dude. I'm such a total moron.Another bright, shining example of your failure to comprehend the difference
between offense and defense. Missile defense systems don't launch ICBMs,
rather, they defend against ICBMs.
So now it's insane to defend one's own country before it's too late? My, howActually, NO SANE COUNTRY would unless a rival decided to obsolete that country's defence (i.e. via Mutually assured destruction).
That's sure what it sounded like. You seemed to be arguing that theirYou seemed to imply that I believed Russia to be developing nuclear weapons because I thought they didn't have them.
Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of absolutely nothing. :laugh:Clearly, and I must bow to your extensive knowledge of 1 wikipedia article that you have mis-interpreted.:laugh:
Here we go again :dry::Another fantastic sentence that your English teacher is so proud of. I really don't understand what you are saying.
Like they did back in the 60's?As for their STAR WARS programme, I'm sure they are racing to get that one sorted.
They were never part of the discussion to begin with. :laugh:What happened to N Korea and Iran? :laugh:
That's why we have missile defense.Let me try to explain in a way a monkey might understand. Russia have nuke. If Russia use nuke WE ALL SCREWED.
Once again, you're not only forgetting the elephant in the room, but the oneI'll try one last time. Sir Bendos and Sir Monkey are enemies. Both have a sword and know that if 1 attacks, then the other will swing their sword at the same time and also kill the other. Thus both die. However, Sir Monkey picks up a shield and now says to Sir Bendos, I have a shield. that means I can swing my sword and kill you and at the same time survive your sword blow with my shield. i.e. Sir Bendos, I own you dude. I am totally top monkey.
Sir Bendos thinks, I seriously need one of those shields dude.