Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

On the peaceful side, would you be willing to invest heavily in new reactors, if it meant we could eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=firstdown;544203]Thats old news now that Obama is in office. I heard he is going to [B]sit down with Iran[/B] and he is at Best Buy picking out a gift to take.[/quote]
im glad you had brought this up. do you see a problem with sitting down, and talking to these countries? i do not. if you don't have dialogue, how can you figure out what makes these guys tick, and how to solve problems?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Come on firstdown and dmek25, chill.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Interesting article on fusion research [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090408/sc_space/friendlydeathstarlasertorecreatesunspower]Friendly 'Death Star' Laser to Recreate Sun's Power[/url]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544220]Come on firstdown and dmek25, chill.[/quote]
Chill what?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

i guess he wants us to stay on topic

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Why would you want to get rid of nuclear weapons? We haven't had another World War since the last one was used?

"Thank God for the bomb."
Ozzy Osbourne: The Ultimate Sin Album

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=dmek25;544230]i guess he wants us to stay on topic[/quote]
The two really go hand in hand and now to answer your question. I think when Obama says he wants to meet with these third world dictators it makes them look like they have more power in the eyes of their people so that is not good. I think the way Obama is going around saying all this stuff about Cuba, not really saying any thing to N Koria, and now saying he wants to sit down with Iran is making Obama look like a weak leader. It like he is making the concessions to meet with them and not the other way around. We are the world power and we need to act like a world power to the little third world nations that are a threat to the world.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

There's no going back. You may as well hope for a world free from fire or the wheel.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?

But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

[B]"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."[/B]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=4mrusmc;544259]With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?

But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

[B]And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.[/B][/quote]

Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544260]Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

[B]"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."[/B][/quote]

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544296]If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
[B]They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.[/B][/quote]

As are we are all. As is anyone who plays videogames or likes porn. As am I because I run through J-broads like I'm original Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson going against the Broncos D.

Trample is basically right. You would have preferred that the US dropped the first bomb on a non-civilian target but they definitely weren't about to surrender. Nevertheless, it was a lot of grandmas and kids who died in Hiroshima, so I'm not sure "glad" is the most appropriate way to describe one's feelings about the bombing.

Getting back to the main discussion, I'm yes on nukes for the reasons already outlined, although national missile defense is a load of dung.