What course of action would you favor?

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
MrBishop said:
What if it was Toronto, Canada that got dirty-bombed? Or San Sebastien, Spain, or Toulousse, France or Athens, Greece or London, England?

Would your country's reaction be the same? You still have a country/group who used a WMD to kill many people and who need to be taught a lesson.

If I remember correctly, Toronto would be no great loss. :D Now Calgary, OTOH, would deserve a swift and bloody response.

Back to the main point...The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was designed to prevent that very scenario you both tell...and is not worth the paper it is printed on. What kept the playing field small in the 70's and 80's was the threat of annihilation by the combined nuclear weapons of the US and the Soviet Union for not toeing the line. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there has been no great rush to shore up the 'status quo' with anything else.
 

freako104

Well-Known Member
Gonz said:
Yet people keep insisting we invade Saudia Arabia & get the hell out of Iraq. :shrug:


Probably because Saudi Arabia is where a majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from and other terrorists are harboured there and it was established sometime ago
 

chcr

Too cute for words
freako104 said:
Probably because Saudi Arabia is where a majority of the 9/11 hijackers came from and other terrorists are harboured there and it was established sometime ago

But they's our frennds. :lloyd:
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Oh by the way Bishy
a 'dirty-bomb' is merely a media creation

there is no such thing

without a long drawn out debate involving sub atomic
nuclear theory, suffice to say, donna worry about it
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
Winky, c'mon, those 15000 people weren't gonna get cancer in their late 40s thru mid 60s anyway ;)
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Winky said:
Oh by the way Bishy
a 'dirty-bomb' is merely a media creation

there is no such thing

without a long drawn out debate involving sub atomic
nuclear theory, suffice to say, donna worry about it
Umm...

Thanks, winky. I might have believed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission if you hadn't set us straight. :rolleyes:
 

Gonz

molṑn labé
Staff member
At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness.

doesn't matter, I'll still want to kill the rabbit
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Heh heh heh that's right gOnzo-matic

Good one Chiccy

thanks for proving my point without even knowing it

"Risk of Cancer
Just because a person is near a radioactive source for a short time
or gets a small amount of radioactive dust on himself or herself
does not mean he or she will get cancer.
The additional risk will likely be very small."


yep you run a far better chance of getting injured by an illegal
driving drunk, without a license and no insurance, than you'd have
of suffering any ill effects from a supposed 'dirty bomb'.

The greatest damage would be to the real estate values in the area...
 

MrBishop

Well-Known Member
The whole point Winkmeister...is the reaction to the use of a dirty bomb as opposed to the final effects of it's usage.

The main goal of terrorism is to cause terror...basically to remove the trust that people have in their GVT, armed forces, police etc to protect them.

Killing people and breaking things is a nice fringe benefit of terrorism...but hardly it's main goal.

Think not of the people who might get sick if a dirty bomb is used, but of the panic of the populace when it comes to radiation, smuggling bombs across borders and the thought that the terrorists could effectivly strike anywhere...despite the newest security measures!
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Yeah OK Bish, I'll give you that but...

Militarily the ragheads can never prevail
in any way shape or form.

heck they can not compete in any arena with the west

not in information (technology)
not economically
not on any battlefield

and certainly not culturally or politically
ain't nobody really wantin' to dress their wimen's
up in burquas and get flat spots on their foreheads a prayin' five times a day to Mecca

nope they all want what we gots
and don't know how to gets it

hint - wait til Iraq gets straightened out and flourishes like Israel.
Freedom has a funny effect on the well being of a countries population.

real_islam.jpg
 

Gato_Solo

Out-freaking-standing OTC member
Funny thing is...every major religion has gone through a period of 'anger management' at one point. They just didn't have the capability to leave their immediate area to cause this kind of disruption. The only thing that stopped religions back then was...force...
 

catocom

Well-Known Member
Bobby Hogg said:
Christianity got about quite a bit. Wrecked cultures all over the world, killed countless numbers of people.
What century was that though?
This is the second millennium now.

What is the meaning of "civilized" ?
 

Bobby Hogg

New Member
catocom said:
What century was that though?
This is the second millennium now.

What is the meaning of "civilized" ?

I'm not blaming the religion itself, really. Just like I don't blame Islam. Both are just weapons wielded by people hungry for power.

Anyway, we are the products of our history. You can trade much of today's problems back to the influence of colonial powers going back centuries. The European powers got fat off the rest of the world and the effects are still with us.
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Winky said:
Heh heh heh that's right gOnzo-matic

Good one Chiccy

thanks for proving my point without even knowing it

"Risk of Cancer
Just because a person is near a radioactive source for a short time
or gets a small amount of radioactive dust on himself or herself
does not mean he or she will get cancer.
The additional risk will likely be very small."


yep you run a far better chance of getting injured by an illegal
driving drunk, without a license and no insurance, than you'd have
of suffering any ill effects from a supposed 'dirty bomb'.

The greatest damage would be to the real estate values in the area...

I don't disagree. The point was (sorry you missed it) that it is much easier to build a "dirty bomb" (you know one 'a them invention of the media thingies) then it is to acquire or build a real nuke. The name of the game is not killing as many people as you can, the name of the game is terror. If you survive the initial panic you can worry about the radiation.
 

Winky

Well-Known Member
Yeppers it ain't easy to make a nukie
but them folks are doin' their bestest

and we've heard about new-cue-lur proliferation
for yars and yars, or is dat another media invention?
 

chcr

Too cute for words
Winky said:
Yeppers it ain't easy to make a nukie
but them folks are doin' their bestest

and we've heard about new-cue-lur proliferation
for yars and yars, or is dat another media invention?

I think it's probably easier to buy one than to build one, don't you?
 
Top