[Thepagoda]

After the brilliant retort to my last post I was going to consider the argument lost. but then it occurred to me, the Only real argument that has been presented here is that people have a problem with the word nuke, and if they'd just let it slide tactical nukes would be great.

Not once have the concerns of WHY people have a problem with the word "nuclear" been addressed, but more of a blanket "you're all ignorant" stance has been pursued. There are serious problems with nuclear weapons as Mr. Valve Bouncer mentioned. They do have radioactive problems, and irradiated material is a serious problem. Aside from the stray bomb problem Nukes, as previously mentioned (brought up again so that the problem may be addressed rather than shirked), do run the risk of escalating any conflict.

So, please, before simply making assertions that opponents are ignorant, consider the use of rhetoric to rebut their arguments.

What about radiation? what about leukemia and what about escalted conflicts? What about off target bombs? or what about planes with tactical nukes getting shot down in enemy territory?

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Ok dude...go read what you just posted.

You basically said. "I dont care about anyone else's points nukes are bad" Blah blah blah blah...

Whats the use in arguing? Seriously? Ive argued numerous points in this thread and most pretty effectively i think...then you come along talking (once again) out of your a$$, and its just pointless. You didnt raise one valid point in the crap you just posted, so go look in the mirror.
And quit (once again) resorting to personal attacks in your posts. Its rather childish i think.

I think it's not so much that you won't answer the points it's that you can't, you don't have the ability. Now you say I don't make any valid points which is nonsense as others have pointed out and then you cry when someone criticises your ostrich like attitude. Grow a pair mate, if you don't like personal attacks go and sit in the Sesame St website and talk about Big Bird. You are from above those tactics yourself so don't act all high and mighty. Until then answer the points or consider yourself owned (again).
Now look BS while I'm certainly anti-nuke as I believe any sane person should be I'm not advocating that the US and other countries discontinue their nuclear arsenals. Apart from being a futile exercise they probably do have some strategic value. But that's not what we are talking about here, what is being debated are a new class of tactical nuclear weapons. Myself and others have presented a number of concerns about this which you just ignore and present as "frivilous" and break your arm patting yourself on your back while telling everyone what a great job you've done presenting the points in favour. But this isn't Mr Surly's soapbox people have the right of reply here and you've been taken to task so put up or shut up.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I think it's not so much that you won't answer the points it's that you can't, you don't have the ability. Now you say I don't make any valid points which is nonsense as others have pointed out and then you cry when someone criticises your ostrich like attitude. Grow a pair mate, if you don't like personal attacks go and sit in the Sesame St website and talk about Big Bird. You are from above those tactics yourself so don't act all high and mighty. Until then answer the points or consider yourself owned (again).

WHAT IN THE NAME OF CHRIST IS YOUR POINT MAN?

All you said is "Nukes are bad, and i dont like them for any reason" essentially.

Real good argument pal. You debate like a 3rd grader.

What if a bomb goes off target? Oooh good one The whole point is that these are smaller and can be guided more effectively, thereby eliminating more errant strikes. But even if it did miss, it is still designed to burrow beneath the ground before exploding.
We have conventional weapons that do much more damage, but arent as accurate...yet you opt to protest the one that makes a little more sense, simply because of the word "nuclear"
Of course, id expect nothing less from you.

Your responses are so predictable that they're boring to even reply to.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda

Not once have the concerns of WHY people have a problem with the word "nuclear" been addressed, but more of a blanket "you're all ignorant" stance has been pursued. There are serious problems with nuclear weapons as Mr. Valve Bouncer mentioned. They do have radioactive problems, and irradiated material is a serious problem. Aside from the stray bomb problem Nukes, as previously mentioned (brought up again so that the problem may be addressed rather than shirked), do run the risk of escalating any conflict.

So, please, before simply making assertions that opponents are ignorant, consider the use of rhetoric to rebut their arguments.

What about radiation? what about leukemia and what about escalted conflicts? What about off target bombs? or what about planes with tactical nukes getting shot down in enemy territory?

People have a problem with nukes because they're afraid. Images of Hiroshima and the Manhattan Project immediately pop to mind, and its really no wonder. However, time changes things, and technology is finding ways to harness the power and make it more useful to our cause. Thats it.

About escalating conflict: Im pretty sure that if we're already bombing a particular country, the escalation of conflict wont be of too big a concern...at least, from the country we're bombing. Most other governments will probably seek after this technology themselves, and are probably smart enough to realize that we're not torching entire cities with these things...we're being more careful.

If a plane did get shot down with one of these, the enemy wouldnt be any better off than if the shot down a plane with bombs we already have, because these arent any more powerful than some of our conventional weapons. They probably wouldnt even have the delivery system to deliver it effectively, or at all, so we may even be safer in that department, with the exception of of some tiny dirty bomb they could create.
j

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
WHAT IN THE NAME OF CHRIST IS YOUR POINT MAN?

All you said is "Nukes are bad, and i dont like them for any reason" essentially.

Real good argument pal. You debate like a 3rd grader.

What if a bomb goes off target? Oooh good one The whole point is that these are smaller and can be guided more effectively, thereby eliminating more errant strikes. But even if it did miss, it is still designed to burrow beneath the ground before exploding.
We have conventional weapons that do much more damage, but arent as accurate...yet you opt to protest the one that makes a little more sense, simply because of the word "nuclear"
Of course, id expect nothing less from you.

Your responses are so predictable that they're boring to even reply to.

LOL, thanks for proving my point once again although you did answer one of the points. I guess the others got put in the too hard (for your limited skills anyway) basket. Look at the Pagodas most recent post, it states the points clearly but you just keep ducking and twisting mate ,after all you present your points so well don't you .
Do you watch the History Channel BS, I'm sure you probably do. Tonight I was watching a show that traced the history of the use of high explosives. The show pondered why tactical nuclear weapons weren't used in the various wars since the end of WW2. The answer was that it is politically unacceptable. You are arguing from a purely military standpoint and I'm sure that from a military standpoint these things are probably a good idea. That's not the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make and which you are obtusely ignoring is that this kind of use of nuclear weapons is unacceptable from a political perspective.
You make the point that there are conventional bombs that are far more destructive than the type of nuclear ones being considered here, I'm sure you're right. But it's letting the genie out of the bottle BS, the thin end of the wedge if you like. Think about it, 2 bombs of the same explosive power one conventional, one nuclear are dropped in a time of war? Which one is going to cause more of a crisis. No brainer. Tell me what happened on these dates BS- August 6th 1945 and March 10 1945. Now tell me on which day more people died. Now tell me which event has more historical resonance. Bit of homework for you BS. If you choose to do it, it may serve to illustrate my point a little better.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
People have a problem with nukes because they're afraid. Images of Hiroshima and the Manhattan Project immediately pop to mind, and its really no wonder. However, time changes things, and technology is finding ways to harness the power and make it more useful to our cause. Thats it.

About escalating conflict: Im pretty sure that if we're already bombing a particular country, the escalation of conflict wont be of too big a concern...at least, from the country we're bombing. Most other governments will probably seek after this technology themselves, and are probably smart enough to realize that we're not torching entire cities with these things...we're being more careful.

If a plane did get shot down with one of these, the enemy wouldnt be any better off than if the shot down a plane with bombs we already have, because these arent any more powerful than some of our conventional weapons. They probably wouldnt even have the delivery system to deliver it effectively, or at all, so we may even be safer in that department, with the exception of of some tiny dirty bomb they could create.
j

There ya go cup cake I knew you could do it.
Point 1 is reasonable from a military perspective, but if as you say there are bigger more powerful conventional bombs available why wouldn't you use those and avoid the "fallout". Again what makes the delivery system on these things more reliable than on conventional bombs. Is there anything inherent in this delivery system that makes it only suitable for nuclear weapons?
Point 2 is hotly debatable for reasons mentioned elsewhere. Is it worth the risk? Well conventional wisdom since the Korean War says not. I can't see it changing anytime soon. And no most other countries won't seek this technology because most other countries don't already have or want nuclear weapons. This is called nuclear proliferation and just about everybody including (especially) your own government thinks that that is a bad idea.
Point 3 is again a good one (what have you been smoking?? ). But I think you ignore the propaganda value of one of these falling into the wrong hands. Just the knowledge that one of these is out there somewhere in the wrong hand will give the terrorists a victory far more so than a conventional bomb.
The whole idea is too crazy and dangerous by half. Thanks for addressing the points anyway, I hope we can get back on track.

 

[partsbara]

valve bouncer, you have again proven that you are a prime @ss piece... ANYONE who knows sh1t from sugar can see that BS has out-debated you in every aspect...

infact i d bet my last dollar that BS has forgotten more than you ll ever know

i think someone needs a trip to the war museum in hiroshima... nothin like seeing remains of people that have had the fvck radiated out of them... shadows on the wall...

anyway, i m goin back to the DH forum where people talk about REAL sh1t...

carry on

partsbara

ps - i ve got some earmuffs i ll give ya BS... far better than fingers in ya ears... plus, you can contine you type drivel cause ya hands are free

:devil:

 

[Silver]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
WHAT IN THE NAME OF CHRIST IS YOUR POINT MAN?

All you said is "Nukes are bad, and i dont like them for any reason" essentially.

Real good argument pal. You debate like a 3rd grader.

Pot, meet Kettle.

Kettle, this is Pot....

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by Silver
Pot, meet Kettle.

Kettle, this is Pot....

agreed silver, it s pretty obvious isn t it... somehow bs can t seem to grasp it...

owned again

partsbara

 

[Tenchiro]

I guess this will be known as the "Do as we say, not as we do" administration... If nothing else, it makes me embarassed to be an American.

U.S., Japan Warn N. Korea on Nuke Tension
2 hours, 6 minutes ago


By SCOTT LINDLAW, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush (news - web sites) and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi warned North Korea (news - web sites) Friday that any escalation of its nuclear weapons program would prompt "tougher measures" by the United States and Japan.

MORE...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by partsbara
agreed silver, it s pretty obvious isn t it... somehow bs can t seem to grasp it...

owned again

partsbara

Man, you guys sure are great at patting each other on the ass over absolutely nothing. Perhaps some day when i get 2 degrees (2 folks! we're not talking just one here) i'll be able to attain such greatness.

Anyway Valve Bouncer, the whole point of these things is that they're nice and compact and easier to deliver, rather than using 8 times the material for the same effect. I guess you could put in terms of "why is a .243 more accurate than a 12 gauge slug" terminology, although that might be the wrong analogy, im sure you get me. Maybe its more like bowling with a hand grenade instead of a bowling ball....or something

I dont see the development of these type weapons really bothering the people who actually sit down and realize what they are. Those who go ahead and lambast the US for going ahead, are probably the same ones that are against just about everything american anyway, so wooody doo. they soil their panties again. Big loss. We've already got the big bombs...why would making something smaller be of any real consequence? You've already said that from a military staindpoint "these things are probably a good idea," so all thats left are the political loose ends that will come from countries that probably dont matter IMO.

I think the propaganda of some terrorists having a tiny nuke because of a dud strike will be minimal in actual effect at best. Once people are educated in the fact that terrorist could make a bigger bomb out of cow feces, the fear will die down pretty quick i would think. I dont think there's a crazy idea here at all. Its just about evolution of warefare...this will probably never end.

I didnt look up the dates of what you posted, but i assume its something akin to the numbers of people that died in the fire bombings and those that died by way of nukes, and how the nukes actually killed less. Good try, but i think mini-underground explosions arent much going to rock the world the way the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. The history channel does rock though.

So, well, Im "owned " again apparently, but the most powerful government in the world seems to agree with me. And the terrorists in underground bunkers have more to fear than ever. I'll take that anyday over silly peacenick jargon.

 

[partsbara]

hey BS... did i mention that i have 2 degrees and you have ZERO, nada, nix, kosong ?

:devil:

keep trying mate

partsbara <--- goin to pat VB on the hoop

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by partsbara
hey BS... did i mention that i have 2 degrees and you have ZERO, nada, nix, kosong ?

:devil:

keep trying mate

partsbara <--- goin to pat VB on the hoop

see sig...

 

[partsbara]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
see sig...

sweet man..thanks

i gotta spread the word, and i appreciate the fact that you will help me out with this one .. it s kinda like the good word of JC

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW !

 

[Thepagoda]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Man, you guys sure are great at patting each other on the ass over absolutely nothing. Perhaps some day when i get 2 degrees (2 folks! we're not talking just one here) i'll be able to attain such greatness.

How about patting ones's self on the back? Just becuase you are getting two degrees doesn't mean that you are right, or even for that matter smarter. I know lots of idiots who are going for Communications and Sociology (for example) double majors that are pretty inept.

I still assert that from a delivery standpoint (which is almost entirely aerodynamics for these things) that there is no reason that the nuke should be more precise. sure the thing may be more manuerverable if it's smaller, and it might be easier to deliver more per sortie, but its not in a dogfight, it is plummeting toward the earth from above 20,000ft. I'll give you that the explosion would probably be more contained for the nuke, but then there's radiation to deal with, and that is not very precise.

I dont see the development of these type weapons really bothering the people who actually sit down and realize what they are. Those who go ahead and lambast the US for going ahead, are probably the same ones that are against just about everything american anyway, so wooody doo. they soil their panties again. Big loss. We've already got the big bombs...why would making something smaller be of any real consequence? You've already said that from a military staindpoint "these things are probably a good idea," so all thats left are the political loose ends that will come from countries that probably dont matter IMO.

This paragraph is ludicrous for several reasons. First you assert that people who don't support the development of tactical nuclear weapons are irrational. While this is your opinion, it's not reasonable to expect that people should just buy into this. If Arguments are going to hinge around points like this, you're not going to be very persuasive to anyone aside from yourself. In almost the same breath I read that these same people are most likely not patriotic either. This continues to narrow the audience, and is outlandish. There is no connection between not being patriotic and not supporting the development of tactical weapons. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who don't support the development of these weapons that still support our government. Patriotism is not synonomous with blind submission.
Secondly the "why not make smaller weapons if we already have the big ones argument" totally ignores the idea that the US is suppossed to be supporting the idea of antiproliferation. Politically the actions that the US takes set the stage for what other countries will do with respect to their nuclear weapons programs, the fewer countries that develop nuclear weapons the better (kinda like why we invaded Iraq...), so how can you expect anyone to listen if the US is developing them?
Lastly, and probably most importantly, are the loose ends who are watching the motions of the US. These loose ends may be the very countries that The US has to go into and drop these Bunker Busters in later. It would be a lot cheaper, a lot faster and a lot safer for the US if, rather than alienating the "loose ends" that you speak of by ignoring them, dealt with issues diplomatically. Cooperation on the parts of other countries to help keep terrorists in check (without full out war) is essential. By ignoring other countries the US loses its first and most important line of defense against terrorists: global participation. There are reasons that the best military options don't always achieve victory (classic example: Vietnam War) or last the longest.

I think the propaganda of some terrorists having a tiny nuke because of a dud strike will be minimal in actual effect at best. Once people are educated in the fact that terrorist could make a bigger bomb out of cow feces, the fear will die down pretty quick i would think.

If you truly believe that terrorists could make more dangerous weapons out of cow feces than they could out of an errant tactical nuclear weapon, then there is no way that you can buy into the Weapons of Mass Destruction argument for the Iraq war. If well developed Nuclear weapons in the hands of Terrorists are less deadly than cow Sh!t, then what happened to the justification that Iraq's WMD were our motivation?

And since Everybody is throwing the degree thing out there, I'll shoot my stats, (while I pat myself on the back..)

I am Three weeks from getting
Bachelor's of Science, Mechanical Engineering, UC Davis (Technically complete)
Bachelor's of Science, Aeronautical Engineering, UC Davis (Technically Complete)
Bachelor's of Science, Biological Systems Engineering, UC Davis (Pending "Human Physiology" and "Statistics for Life Sciences")
Minor in Communications (Pending "Communciation and Cognition" and "Nonverbal Communication")

But like I mentioned earlier, none of this makes me right or smarter, it just makes me sound more official. Oh, and makes it easier for me to get a job.

 

[valve bouncer]

I just saw your sig line BS and to tell you the truth I'm flabbergasted. You really let this stuff get to you, don't you? I suggest growing a pair mate
Anyway we are arguing in circles I can see your point fine but you just have no idea what I'm talking about because you are incapable of the mental leap. You are fine from a theoretical point of view but when it comes to real world application you just don't have a clue and your lack of knowledge of how the world works is laughably inept. You dismiss the political concerns as "loose ends" when in fact they are the whole ball game. The ability to produce these types of weapons (nuclear artillery for example) has been around since the 50's but they've never gone into service precisely because the political risks are too high. It remains too high to this day.
I see too that you totally missed my point about the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I thought about putting it in less subtle terms but I thought you'd get it. I'll never over-estimate you again BS. No the point was that even though the Tokyo fire-bombing killed more people than the Hiroshima bomb and was arguably more terrible, the Tokyo fire-bombing has largely been forgooten but no-one will or can forget Hiroshima, such are the emotive effects of nuclear weapons. Do your best BS it's not really that difficult a point to grasp.

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by partsbara
sweet man..thanks

i gotta spread the word, and i appreciate the fact that you will help me out with this one .. it s kinda like the good word of JC

EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW !

Did you laugh as hard as I did when you saw that mate? I'm still shaking my head. Nice to know you've got a fan

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
How about patting ones's self on the back? Just becuase you are getting two degrees doesn't mean that you are right, or even for that matter smarter. I know lots of idiots who are going for Communications and Sociology (for example) double majors that are pretty inept.

Hey, Partsbara...you read this?

Hahahaha!


Pagoda, um....well, i think you got confused somewhere.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
I just saw your sig line BS and to tell you the truth I'm flabbergasted. You really let this stuff get to you, don't you? I suggest growing a pair mate
Anyway we are arguing in circles I can see your point fine but you just have no idea what I'm talking about because you are incapable of the mental leap. You are fine from a theoretical point of view but when it comes to real world application you just don't have a clue and your lack of knowledge of how the world works is laughably inept. You dismiss the political concerns as "loose ends" when in fact they are the whole ball game. The ability to produce these types of weapons (nuclear artillery for example) has been around since the 50's but they've never gone into service precisely because the political risks are too high. It remains too high to this day.
I see too that you totally missed my point about the fire bombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. I thought about putting it in less subtle terms but I thought you'd get it. I'll never over-estimate you again BS. No the point was that even though the Tokyo fire-bombing killed more people than the Hiroshima bomb and was arguably more terrible, the Tokyo fire-bombing has largely been forgooten but no-one will or can forget Hiroshima, such are the emotive effects of nuclear weapons. Do your best BS it's not really that difficult a point to grasp.

Yeah, um about my sig...that's what i like to call... "a joke" see? Its only an internet board after all really. I dont think these witty little retorts ever "get to me".

Anyway...I got your point about the Hiroshima thing, i think i just didnt explain it well. Or you missed my point on the other hand. The Artillery nukes you speak of, to my knowledge, never burrowed beneath the earth's surface before exploding, so i dont believe this technology is that old. I mean, after all, we are researching this stuff right?

I think its you who's missing the grasp on reality as you relax in peacenick paradise. Its easy to me to see why weapons need to evolve. All you can think is "nukes are bad" and wont ever get past it, even though you agree that they make sense in actual practice on the battlefield. The only problem being the lack of understanding from people who feel like you do. So, it kind of goes in a big "who gives a rats ass circle" i agree. This is played.

In the real world, wars happen. The cleaner we can make them, the better IMO.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I think the propaganda of some terrorists having a tiny nuke because of a dud strike will be minimal in actual effect at best.

You understand that the danger of a dud or a downed bomber isn't simply the terrorists having control of an explosive, right? If you have the technology for a mini-nuke, you will have the technology for a big nuke.

I don't feel that the danger of a dud is significant given modern guidance and ignition systems (a downed bomber may be more likely... see China and NK), however since you're having a hard time understanding the opposition, I thought I might clarify.