17 Mar 06
Originally posted by Tetsujinyeah but the U.S. as a country and a culture was founded on the double standard. They were slave owners who wanted to be free. SLAVE OWNERS that lef their home because they wanted to be FREE. And now it's the the U.S. can have nuclear weapons and attack whoever they want but nobody else can have any or attack anybody else.
It took you a few years to figure that out?
How long will it take you to realize that you can't use force alone to police the planet?
How long will it take you to realize that perhaps this isn't about nuclear arms at all, but the fact that the US fears someone else will have the balls to talk to them at their level?
Mutually Assured Destruction, that's our ticket.
Maybe if the U.S. treated other countries well enought that they didn't desire to nuke the crap out of the U.S. then we wouldn't have to worry about whether anybody had nuclear wepons or not.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by abejnoodNot true. Nuclear fission is NOT the way to go to get energy after the demise of oil. You should read up on that subject before you spout off on it. Using fission for electricity only puts off a situation which is nearly impossible to deal with: Spent nuclear material. You only get a few decades of honeymoon period before that sticks up its ugly head. And an ugly head it is. No new nuke plants have been built in the US for JUST that reason. Nobody wants spent rods in their neighborhood, stuff that stays extremely dangerous for millennia.
No, it is not wanted for prtoection,it is needed for nuclear energy, because oil won't last forever.
The way we HAVE to go for energy after oil is renewable resources like
solar, wind and wave (the energy of which ultimately comes from the sun anyway) or fusion. Fusion power is just a bit on the iffy side, having been researched for a half centruy and yet to produce anything close to generating surplus energy. There are three main paths to fusion and none of them has produced squat as of yet. Maybe in another 50 years. It will be a lot easier just to pave the deserts with solar cells, but that has its drawbacks also such as changing the weather if you do it on a large enough scale. Growing Jojoba plants is another alternative, it makes essentially pure diesel fuel. The only problem with that is its still a CO2 generator and if the world gets much hotter, there won't be as much arable land to grow anything.
The 21st century sucks on many levels. One being the fact there are 6 billion people on the planet and counting. That can't continue, there will be a big correction factor in that regard, humans are too stupid to see the changes going on right in front of our eyes and if we screw up the planet and it exterminates humans, we never deserved it in the first place.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by sonhouseAlthough i agree with you that nuclear energy isn't all good, it still is alot more cost effective that oil, and even more cost effctive that solar/wind power. It also has ALOT less emissionns that coal/oil. Add to the fact that Iran isn't the wealthiest country and the idea that they are persuing Nuclear energy is a possibility. Personaly though, i think they are after protection from USA's crusade.
Not true. Nuclear fission is NOT the way to go to get energy after the demise of oil. You should read up on that subject before you spout off on it. Using fission for electricity only puts off a situation which is nearly impossible to deal with: Spent nuclear material. You only get a few decades of honeymoon period before that sticks up its ugly head. And a ...[text shortened]... if we screw up the planet and it exterminates humans, we never deserved it in the first place.
17 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by EsotericIt may be cost effective now but what do you do 50 or 100 years from now when you have a million tons of spent rods to deal with? You think the waste problem is bad now, wait till the world goes nuclear (fission that is) in a really big way. France is one such country right now, they are too stupid to realize they are sitting on a timebomb of their own making. The only nuclear power worth considering is fusion and that is going to be a trillion dollar investment before it produces a watt of energy, however I personally think that will be the best trillion dollars spent by the human race if they go for it.
Although i agree with you that nuclear energy isn't all good, it still is alot more cost effective that oil, and even more cost effctive that solar/wind power. It also has ALOT less emissionns that coal/oil. Add to the fact that Iran isn't the wealthiest country and the idea that they are persuing Nuclear energy is a possibility. Personaly though, i think they are after protection from USA's crusade.
As for getting protection from the latest crusade, its a bit late for that, the forces in the world will never allow it, right or wrong.
Personally I don't think Iran would be a world threat if it had a few nukes but unfortunutely I am not in charge. On the other hand I would not like to see Iran actually HAVE nukes either. I would rather see the rest of the world turn in theirs like how some cities give money to people who turn in guns, then they get ground to powder or burned up. The only good nuke is a dead nuke. All 50,000 of them.
Rutherford saw it coming and warned about its use long before there were any artificial fissioning experiments.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by PeachyI think it was meant as one of those slaps you get in films.
😳:'(😳
You know the kind of scenario - things are getting a bit tense, and one of the hero's side-kicks loses the plot and starts to rant.
Or when the archetypal stiff upper lip english male hero has 'no option' but to slap the equally archetypal neurotic female.
A kind of 'pull yourself together' slap - for your own good, as opposed to an aggresive slap.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaBut when a country aspires to get superior technology, we threaten to bomb them.
Superior technolgy and talent. Not to mention its freedom from a 'dark age' theology.
And I'd dispute whether the current leadership of the US was free from a dark age theology.
Your argument just doesn't make sense - it is based on the assumption that the west is somehow better than everyone else.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by RedmikeThe assumption referred to in your last sentence happens to be right at the present time! That's why the rest of the world depends on Western aid in one shape or form.
But when a country aspires to get superior technology, we threaten to bomb them.
And I'd dispute whether the current leadership of the US was free from a dark age theology.
Your argument just doesn't make sense - it is based on the assumption that the west is somehow better than everyone else.
17 Mar 06
Originally posted by NargagunaBeing technologically more advanced isn't the same as better.
The assumption referred to in your last sentence happens to be right at the present time! That's why the rest of the world depends on Western aid in one shape or form.
It doesn't give the west the right to make decisions for the rest of the world.
Technical superiority isn't moral superiority.