Warmonger Thread

reply to post by Aeons

Nuclear Power came because of nuclear weapons, not the other way around. You use the words "Manhattan Project" while not seeming to actually know much about it.

It really doesn't take a master of nuance to understand what you just wrote here, and yet, very clearly, you have no clue as to what you just stated.

Nuclear power - that thing you referred to as "the power of the sun" - was not invented, and to date has not truly been effectively harnessed.

It is rare an ignoramus of your magnitude brags so heavily about it.

There is a really good narrative type breakdown of the Manhattan Project in a book called "Organizing Genius."

Enjoy.

In the meantime: www.fas.org...

The Manhattan project took place from 1942 to 1946.
Beginning in 1939, some key scientists
expressed concern that Germany might be building an atomic weapon and proposed that the
United States accelerate atomic research in response. Following the Pearl Harbor attack in
December 1941, the United States entered World War II. In January 1942, President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave secret, tentative approval for the development of an atomic bomb.

The goal of the Manhattan Project was not Nuclear Energy to power your home, but to create an atomic bomb. Nuclear Energy is a consequence of the program, not the other way around.

reply to post by UnderStation


I applause your thread, and balls to tell us what you think...


two things...

I ask.. before turning on us "AMERICANS take a cruise or travel to a 3rd world country or check out a socialist country in Europe. No disrespect Europe...

Then come back on and tell me what you think...

Don't bother responding with you have already done this...


In addition..

The iranians think differently then us Westerners do..

Most days they are praying...
ahem...

and are driven... AHEM... AAAAHEEEMMM.. By their religious beleif's...

nukes and religious leaders= GOD....







welcome to the show...

Originally posted by SyphonX


You can't criticize Iran's supposed "sanctioned death chants", and then disregard the attitude of many Americans. It signifies you have little foundation to stand on in your assertions, because you are appealing to a moral high ground, when America doesn't have the slightest. I suppose you'll now say you have no 'baggage' to carry for America, and you're really just a ghost living in the spectral realm with no real stake in anything but your own opinion...

On the topic of Iran and Nuclear weapons,do you suppose its "morally" corrupt to even want to have a weapon? In the wrong possession,it could start WW3. Many Americans lived through the Cold War,in constant fear of Nuclear Annihilation. I think the case,stands today. Most of the World,didn't want North Korea to have Nuclear Weapons,Being their regime is hardline,against most of the World. They stated their Nuclear Intentions as peaceful,as Iran states today. The more Nations to have such a destructive weapon,the more of a chance to use them.The chances of it falling into some obscure group of individuals,that have no problem on killing innocent victims,for the sake of Religion,Ideology,or outright hatred for another group of human beings.


If Iran becomes another Nation,to have such a weapon,and perhaps happens to use this weapon,would you not want to stop them? If yes,would you not want to stop them from procuring such a weapon so said scenario never exists ? Or do morals,honor,or blind judgement prohibit from even that thought?

reply to post by Aeons

The goal of the Manhattan Project was not Nuclear Energy to power your home, but to create an atomic bomb. Nuclear Energy is a consequence of the program, not the other way around.
[/quote/]

Just another straw man from you. I am not aware of anyone in this thread, and certainly not I, who have claimed the "goal of the Manhattan Project" was nuclear energy.

However, the Manhattan Project is not - by any stretch of the imagination - the beginnings of nuclear reaction research:

Ionising radiation was discovered by Wilhelm Rontgen in 1895, by passing an electric current through an evacuated glass tube and producing continuous X-rays. Then in 1896 Henri Becquerel found that pitchblende (an ore containing radium and uranium) caused a photographic plate to darken. He went on to demonstrate that this was due to beta radiation (electrons) and alpha particles (helium nuclei) being emitted. Villard found a third type of radiation from pitchblende: gamma rays, which were much the same as X-rays. Then in 1896 Pierre and Marie Curie gave the name 'radioactivity' to this phenomenon, and in 1898 isolated polonium and radium from the pitchblende. Radium was later used in medical treatment. In 1898 Samuel Prescott showed that radiation destroyed bacteria in food.

world-nuclear.org...

To be sure, a full and concentrated effort to harness nuclear power as a propulsive device, or electricity did not accelerate until after 1945, but to claim that such a thing did not happen until after nuclear fission was used to bomb the crap out of people is just plain ignorant. Also, implicit in your argument is that bombing the crap out of people with radioactive bombs led to a good thing. Yet, nuclear power remains a dubious source of power still to this day, and given the events of Love Canal, Chernobyl, and most recently in Japan, it is a laughable implication.

edit on 17-1-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I agree on this Jean.

Many wont agree with me or you on this,but as you stated, just a few problems with reactors,can doom the World.
Having a majority of them on fault lines,to the ever increase of waste.

I applaud country's like Germany,who plan to do away with them.

As for Nuclear Weapons, we can destroy the Word 20 times over,but there are still country's that "need" to have them.

Sad.

reply to post by sonnny1


Sad indeed. Tragically sad, as few even want to discuss the idea of world wide nuclear disarmament, but so many are salivating at the idea of war with Iran because some how Iranians and their theocracy is more dangerous than Americans with nuclear bombs.

Amazing. Defending Iran having nukes while also defending disarmament.

Sense. You make none.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by sonnny1

 

Sad indeed. Tragically sad, as few even want to discuss the idea of world wide nuclear disarmament, but so many are salivating at the idea of war with Iran because some how Iranians and their theocracy is more dangerous than Americans with nuclear bombs.

My only problem with all of this,is America WILL have to get involved. We have no other choice,because of past actions,and rhetoric. Playing police of the world,to getting involved with regime changes,to every other thing our Politicians have said and done. Many on ATS would love to see America,just walk away from it all. Unfortunately,we started the "nuclear game" and cant stop playing it,because the deck of cards is perpetual. As for the Iranians,and their theology based Nation,I saw protests last year,that say they want change. It gives me hope.But What kind of change,I do not know. I also think that the hardliners in Iran,as in other Nations,are holding onto power,with hopes of more. Its going on in many country's. I believe its the Governments that have hand-tied its peoples into believing War is the answer. I will say this much about America. We used those atomic bombs,in the hopes to spare lives. I hope whatever happens in the near future,we do the same,to spare the human population on this Earth,more sorrow. Most humans I know, are tired of War.

Originally posted by Aeons
Amazing. Defending Iran having nukes while also defending disarmament.

Sense. You make none.

When will you stop with the strawman arguments? I am long on record in this thread of asserting that no one has the right to nuclear weapons, not any individual, and certainly not any government.

My stance on Iran is this: Let's clean up our own back yard first! Let's disarm our own nuclear arsenal and then begin the discussion of an invasion of countries that insist on having nuclear weapons.

I get that you don't want to acknowledge this, because arguing against such a stance will only make you the warmonger, but hey, if it walks like a duck....

In an ideal world: Leaders would negotiate with Iran, they stop their program, no one gets hurt.

In a realistically-ideal world: Military action would be needed to forcefully stop their nuclear program. Just a quick in and out, no getting greedy for the oil and other "profits" that may be there.

In reality: If things go as they are, aggressive military action would be taken. Then US gets greedy and turns Iran into another Iraq and goes for the oil and what not, whilist bombing them back into the stone age as seeing the aggressive bee as Iran is.

There is one situation that makes all probablities obsolete. Scientists discover a more profient and safe form of energy that does not required radioactive materials what so-ever and in turn putting the whole "we're using it as an energy source" BS to an end. Then countries start getting rid of their stockpiles so we don't have giant guns pointed to other countries' heads, regulate the uses for radiactive materials and call it a day From that point on, we find a sufficent way to render the missles that the greedy countries held out on useless.

Then more problems arise from the above as well....

-First and fore most: US will be one of the greedy countries and keep most of it's stockpile (look at the current stockpile)

-Above mentioned energy source could be power an even more devastating weapon.

-Some nuclear powerhouses would not want to comply.

-Due to the discovery of a new and proficient enery source, uranium becomes easier to obtain (wild idea but could be a possiblity if the affordmentioned regulations come to pass) and crazies get a hold of it.
*A side to this is that rouge thrid world countries claim to want uranium as a source for nuclear power since the greedy corporations will probably raise the price of the new energy tech through the roof.

There are probably more faults to this than I can come up with, so I guess there is no winning there unless people cease the need to bomb one another to kingdom come. All in all crazy people shouldn't have nukes

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Aeons
Amazing. Defending Iran having nukes while also defending disarmament.

Sense. You make none.

When will you stop with the strawman arguments? I am long on record in this thread of asserting that no one has the right to nuclear weapons, not any individual, and certainly not any government.

My stance on Iran is this: Let's clean up our own back yard first! Let's disarm our own nuclear arsenal and then begin the discussion of an invasion of countries that insist on having nuclear weapons.

I get that you don't want to acknowledge this, because arguing against such a stance will only make you the warmonger, but hey, if it walks like a duck....

You literally have every argument backwards of what works.

That's fascinating. How do you do that? Does it hurt your brain to contort it that way, that every solution you propose could never work?

reply to post by Aeons

You literally have every argument backwards of what works.

And yet, you're the one getting schooled. It is truly amazing how that works!

This is interesting.

One wants peace through the barrel of a gun .....Aeons

And

One wants peace through planning and revision of national infrastructure and and outward move to security on a global scale.
Jean Paul Zodeaux

Wonder which one will work the best? All I can say is I know which one sounds better.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Aeons

 

You literally have every argument backwards of what works.
[/

And yet, you're the one getting schooled. It is truly amazing how that works!

I agree. I am taking schooling in how to deconstruct blatant disinformation techniques. Your's is very amusing. I appreciate it. Do you chuckle while formulating this stuff?

How to formulate arguments for everything that doesn't work. I thank you for being a master of blatantly wrong.

reply to post by snowen20


You want to put down your weapons and hope that those who believe in peace means you surrender to them will too because it is just the right thing to do.

I would *LOVE* to live your fantasy world. Unfortunately, God gave me this little thing called sense and I haven't figured out how to shed it yet.

I don't need peace through a gun. I would greatly prefer that that was never the necessary case. Ever.

Iran's plans are demented. I have no intention of watching while you guys cheerlead a march to stupidity.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by snowen20

 

You want to put down your weapons and hope that those who believe in peace means you surrender to them will too because it is just the right thing to do.

I would *LOVE* to live your fantasy world. Unfortunately, God gave me this little thing called sense and I haven't figured out how to shed it yet.

I don't need peace through a gun. I would greatly prefer that that was never the necessary case. Ever.

Iran's plans are demented. I have no intention of watching while you guys cheerlead a march to stupidity.

What fantasy world might that be Aeons? I have given you nothing to go on other than a brief summary of what I have noticed from the back and forth between you and several other members.
I dont have a dog in the fight anymore where this war is concerned, so I assure you there is no fantasy world here in which I dwell.

That being said, my comments were not based on anything more that what sounded most logical to me. (from a peaceful perspective)

You do not even know my views on the subject at hand yet you are showing aggression and lack of common sense by associating me with the people you have been fighting with in this thread for how many hours now? You assume I disagree with you in totality and therefore you cast me amongst the cheer leading stupid people as you call them.

So essentially you have brashly reacted toward a comment because you think someone doesn't agree with you and therefore must be stupid.
How very ATS of you..

It isn't peaceful to court destruction.

Iran's plans are destructive to Africa. They are destructive to Israel (I know that doesn't count). The concept of peace they are using isn't peace as we understand it.

When everyone is willing to come to a table for peace with the intent of real lack of conflict and a will towards a common goal of the good of mankind I'll break out the pom-poms.

You can paint me however you like. I'll continue to be glad to be judged on what I've actually written, even if you insist on its reinterpretation.

Peace isn't accepting stupid.

www.voanews.com...

A high-ranking Russian told reporters in Moscow on Tuesday that it “remains unproven” that there is a military component to Iran’s nuclear program.

On the other hand, he added, Tehran’s decision to enrich uranium violates international resolutions designed to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.

What? Russia says that Iran is violating international resolutions?

“We have in Turkey the new Ottoman Empire. Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a man with a very dangerous ambition, and he looks at himself a new Ottoman Sultan,” he said.

The Islamic States are forming up into Empires, with a race to see who heads it up? You don't say?

Today, Russia’s population is aging and shrinking. Its military might is a shadow of its Soviet strength.

Well yeah. That's all of us. We all took on the "reduce population" message, and we're getting screwed for it. Promises of stability turn out to be highly over-rated.

reply to post by Aeons


If there is one certainty in all this, it is that like you say, there will be no peace without some kind of conflict. I dont think the people of Iran are all that bad anymore than I think all my fellow Americans are all that bad. But rulers of any country regardless of local need to be placed in check and held accountable to potential outcomes.

I see this being the case with Iran whether I like it or not, whether they legitimately have or are attempting to gain WMDs.

I have seen some good points put out by both sides of the argument. My personal view here is that if America were to start getting rid of it's built up armory of nukes or what have you; some one who is not willing to cooperate (like Iran, North Korea,China) would simply stockpile. There is no clean and neat package that I see where this can be pleasantly swept up. Eventually we (every nation) will have to get our hands dirty.

So you see Aeons, our views are not too dissimilar, though I like the ideals of Jean Paul Zodeaux better.

Hope that clarifies things, if you were even remotely interested.