The [revived] debate thread!

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 4:54 am

Well I see none in sight

so why not? I think it was really successfull... one of the most popular threads (and biggest) so here we go.
Now after the Iraqi war, the U.S. is most definitely headed towards war against Iran (with this time possibly an international force). Do you think going into Iran would be a good idea?

for me personally, no. I think the U.S. has had too much influence in the Middle east already (especially with the events at Iran and Afghanistan). I think raping Iran would be over doing it... not to mention the U.S. is having some big debt probs (less than eclipsing the % national GDP, but being the U.S. has the highest GDP, it means a BIG debt too), some probs with the militiary (insubordinate troops... overfunded yet undermanned, you get what I mean), it could push terroism threats and create more anti-semitism towards the U.S.

So what Iran has a few nukes? NK poses an even greater threat. And why not the U.S. destroy their own pile of nukes that are left (10,000) before going into other countries to rob them of their nukes?

Spengo · Post by **Spengo** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 4:56 am

lol, go into Iran? You'd think we'd learn the first time, but you never know.

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 5:29 am

just nuke all the middle east, ask questions later!

lol

leofox · Post by **leofox** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 2:42 pm

Have you heard about the US governments plans to develop better nuclear weapons? you heard me right, their making nuke's again! Bit hypocritical is it, if they're bombing every country they THINK has nukes?

Post by **Kozak** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 5:41 pm

I think an international force should invade the US to bring democracy there. Bush's morals applied to himself!

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 7:00 pm

Well see, the only difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran DOES have nukes but they have been cooperating ... but Rice is stating something like we're definitely about to attack Iran soon.
leofox, better nukes? Geez, why don't they just start making hydrogen bombs? they're more powerful and more environmentally friendly

leofox · Post by **leofox** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 7:26 pm

currahee wrote:Well see, the only difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran DOES have nukes but they have been cooperating ... but Rice is stating something like we're definitely about to attack Iran soon.
leofox, better nukes? Geez, why don't they just start making hydrogen bombs? they're more powerful and more environmentally friendly

I think hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs too, if they use a nuclear reaction.

lloydkirk1989 · Post by **lloydkirk1989** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 8:08 pm

leofox wrote:
currahee wrote:Well see, the only difference between Iraq and Iran is that Iran DOES have nukes but they have been cooperating ... but Rice is stating something like we're definitely about to attack Iran soon.
leofox, better nukes? Geez, why don't they just start making hydrogen bombs? they're more powerful and more environmentally friendly
I think hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs too, if they use a nuclear reaction.

First of all, Hydrogen Bombs are not more powerful
Secondly, Hydrogen bombs are not nuclear, unless they have a high grade uranium core and they were not designed to contain this. In fact they work completely differently. They are known to the world as the most powerful NON-nuclear explosive.

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 8:24 pm

Uhhh...Hydrogen bombs use Deuterium & Tritium, the heavier forms of hydrogen. Unlike plutonium bombs which use fisson, hydrogen bombs generate enough heat to cause fussion, And therefore are more powerful. And fussion is a nuclear reaction so they nuclear bombs.
I've also heard that modern H-bombs are alot cleaner than what was used in the old days, but there hard to make and store. Considering the first atomic bomb was basicly fireing a radiocative bullet into another radioactive element at critical mass, i'd say non-H-bombs are likely to show up.

Post by **kv83** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 11:13 pm

Jim e wrote:Uhhh...Hydrogen bombs use Deuterium & Tritium, the heavier forms of hydrogen. Unlike plutonium bombs which use fisson, hydrogen bombs generate enough heat to cause fussion, And therefore are more powerful. And fussion is a nuclear reaction so they nuclear bombs.

This sounds fun... anyone wanna help me to make one?

Post by **sic** » Fri 11 Feb, 2005 11:32 pm

If you're looking for a project: cheap homemade nuclear fusion reactor

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Sat 12 Feb, 2005 12:04 am

Well, first we need some uranium-235 and then we need to convert it to plutonium-235. Then it's a meer matter of hammering two pieces together. Ever see Young Einstein, kinda like that.

I'd help out more, but I'm to busy turning my microwave into a herf gun.

VahnRPG · Post by **VahnRPG** » Sat 12 Feb, 2005 12:51 am

radio shack is where i tend to pick up my plutonium...just a head's up ^^'

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 8:07 pm

Er... how exactly does that work?

VahnRPG · Post by **VahnRPG** » Sun 13 Feb, 2005 8:15 pm

well, ya go up there, make a BIG scene about it (if yer new ta the whole process or just wanna get attention). Saunter up to the register, slam your hand down and say "Gimme some plutonium." If you do it right they won't hesitate and give it to ya right away