Nuclear War on the Horizon?

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Unread postby Han Xin » Tue Jan 07, 2003 3:25 pm

Ryubbi wrote:btw, you believe the leader of the free world is pronouncing "nuclear" as "nucular?" incredible.

Clinton also prononce Nuclear as "Nucular" too, but I don't see anyone making fun of his pronounciation. Anyhow, I don't think that George W. ever threatenned Irag with nuke. I believe his comments was on "if Irag was start using biological/chemical/nuclear weapon against coalition troops?", so I think his comments was reasonable that if Saddam dare using those weapons, then all gloves are off.
Han Xin's past-time - 沉湎於酒, 淫於聲色, 左手擁華姬,右手抱越女:lol:
User avatar
Han Xin
Shu Emperor
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 1:20 am
Location: In the middle between Love and Lust. ^_^

Unread postby Ryubbi » Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:39 pm

Han Xin wrote:Clinton also prononce Nuclear as "Nucular" too, but I don't see anyone making fun of his pronounciation. Anyhow, I don't think that George W. ever threatenned Irag with nuke. I believe his comments was on "if Irag was start using biological/chemical/nuclear weapon against coalition troops?", so I think his comments was reasonable that if Saddam dare using those weapons, then all gloves are off.

Hey don't get me wrong, I like Bush the Junior. I also liked Clinton, now that you mention it. It's disappointing that these guys can't realize & correct the mispronunciation, is all I'm sayin'.

And you're right, that was precisely the context of Bush's nuclear threat that I read about as well - we'd microwave Baghdad if they unleash WMD on our troops or allies.
men are drawn to a leader of great virtue / it was for that reason I followed Liu Bei
User avatar
Ryubbi
Master
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 3:10 am
Location: curahee - hi ho silver!

Unread postby Lion's Mane » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:48 am

It's seemingly an American issue to pronounce nuclear and "new-kew-ler."

Dunno why, but it's not isolated to Clinton or Bush.
Remember, children, "No two people are not on fire."
User avatar
Lion's Mane
Lord of Annwn
Lord of Annwn
 
Posts: 1274
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 9:25 pm
Location: Challenging the wind...

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Wed Jan 08, 2003 10:11 am

Lord Davion wrote:It's seemingly an American issue to pronounce nuclear and "new-kew-ler."

Dunno why, but it's not isolated to Clinton or Bush.


Indeed, it's pretty much become a staple of American-South vernacular. Back on topic, I don't really think that we are on the verge of a nuclear conflict. Although North Korea is developing long range missiles (ICBM), and has a small NBC program, I still think any conflict that could arise is years off, if ever. Iraq, give me a break. I can't foresee any possible scenerio where we would have to drop a nuke on Baghdad...it would be like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Our own troops are plenty good enough to go in there and finish off the regime of Saddam.
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

Unread postby James » Wed Jan 08, 2003 3:35 pm

Alpha_Beta wrote:i agree, if the americans have neuclear weapons the rest of the world should be allowed to have them too wether george bush likes the contries leader or not. if he has to attack saddam it would make him the worlds largest hypocrit, and i dont think neuclear weapons are thew only reason bush is attacking iraq but thats just me

So you think that all nations, even those known actively involved in terrorist threats and attack, should be able to receive or create nuclear weapons by their neighbors?
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17950
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Unread postby Stuart » Wed Jan 08, 2003 6:52 pm

i dont honestly think that terrorist states should be allowed to have neuclear weapons on the whole neuclear weapons are a bad thing, i dont think the americans should be allowed them either honestly cause anything can happen.
User avatar
Stuart
The Shining One
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2002 6:52 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Unread postby Travis » Wed Jan 08, 2003 8:54 pm

America is far from using nuclear weapons on this. If we dropped nuke on Bahgdad, the international community would destroy the US. The US is a tough mofo, but not enough to take all the world on at once and come out alive.
"Be on your Guard, Stand Firm in the Faith, Be Men of Courage, Be Strong, Do everything in Love" - Master Lee's School Motto-

Formerly Schwarz Bruder/Taishi Ci
User avatar
Travis
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: Master Lee's TKD School (LaFayette, Ga USA)

Unread postby Rhiannon » Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:17 am

I feel that within the next 10 years, we'll see at least one nuclear weapon used, but I doubt more than 5. I think the world as a whole prefers to use them as threats and treat them as a sacred weapon that you use only when you have to, not as a part of regular arsenal.

As for the rest of the world being permitted to use nuclear weapons, please keep in mind, the agreement is for global disarmament, including the United States. The United States however, has not complied with these nuclear treaties yet, though they keep promising soon. I think the intent is to make sure the rest of the world doesn't have 'em, before we get rid of ours. Just in case...
"For us to have self-esteem is truly an act of revolution and our revolution is long overdue."
— Margaret Cho
User avatar
Rhiannon
Joy & Oblivion
Joy & Oblivion
 
Posts: 5268
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2002 10:10 pm

Unread postby Travis » Thu Jan 09, 2003 2:40 am

Yeah, You can never be too careful. The US has too many enemies to let it's guard down yet until we rebuild our regular army from the pretty bad budget cuts Clinton put on them. The US military was reduced to a mere fraction of it's size, It needs to recover before we can consider ourselves safe without nuclear weapons.
"Be on your Guard, Stand Firm in the Faith, Be Men of Courage, Be Strong, Do everything in Love" - Master Lee's School Motto-

Formerly Schwarz Bruder/Taishi Ci
User avatar
Travis
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: Master Lee's TKD School (LaFayette, Ga USA)

Unread postby Iznoach, Legendary Dragon » Thu Jan 09, 2003 5:42 am

So true, Taishi Ci. I know this'll sound extremely biased, but what the hell. I think we should keep our Nukes until the 'unstable' nations have disarmed theirs, as a deterrant and nothing else. We all know (if you like to admit it or not) that the U.S. government has way too many restrictions and failsafes for our arsenal to be used rashly, and our government is more responsible than that. I don't know about some of these other nations, though.

Btw, I support worldwide disarmament...total disarmament.
"Armed and dangerous, ain't too many can hang wit us
straight up weed no angel dust, label us Notorious..."--Biggie
User avatar
Iznoach, Legendary Dragon
Gunslinger
 
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 7:28 am
Location: French Landing, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 1 guest

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved