Printable View
Far more than that. There are those with nukes, sharing nukes, or had nukes and "disarmed", which are the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
USA
Russia
UK
France
China
Canada
India
Pakistan
South Africa
Israel
North Korea
Belguim
Netherlands
Turkey
Germany
Italy
Greece
Ukraine
Belarus
Kazakhstan
At what point did Germany have it's own nukes? Surely we have the technology and the means to have them, and we have american nukes stationed here but I'm not aware that we ever had any nukes of our own.
That list is flawed mate. And as you said, you listed some countries with disarmed nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Whole point of the sharing is so you have the protection of Nuclear weapons, without having an independent control over them. While these are "shared" they are basically a compromise for you having your own weapons. Half-way measure. But in reality, it is basically you having your own weapons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You never know, they still might have some hidden away. But the fact they even had nuclear weapons is another thing in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV
I thought it was more a thing of the US spreading them around and also a matter of range in the beginning since ICBMs didn't exist in the early days of the nuclear age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
And we don't need them anyway as long as France has them, while the nationalistic islanders who deny being part of Europe anyway, aka the British, may just watch us getting overrun by whoever (the soviets back then), I doubt the French would. ~;)
Those 'perfidious' Brits spent forty years maintaining 60,000 troops in Germany during the coldwar, and even now there are 25,000 British troops stationed there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
:daisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_of_the_Rhine
Dude bet south africa still has nukes man one of their main exports is mercenaries for gods sake
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I seriously doubt it. They dismantled when they saw the writing on the wall for apartheid. The whites did not want to see the new government with nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Are you ********* me kadagar it was a joke about how many mercenaries are south African. Surely you know that theyhave an excess to say the least due to certain........factors. ah the wite population
Why did you asterix out 'kidding'?
Trying to be sensitive to the goat members of the Backroom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
He he... When I see "dude", "man" and "for gods sake" in one sentence I cant help but to jab. Specially when the main point at that is Ludicrous, joke or not.
All for chuckles of course :)
As to the mysterious "*********".
Shame on you Louis, it is clearly a 9-letter word, and "kidding" is only 7.
I wonder what word it could be?
Perhaps commendable political correctness and cultural sensitivity then - the word, after all, is a virtual synonym of kiddie porn in *****-******.Quote:
Trying to be sensitive to the goat members of the Backroom?
So kadagar ever heard of a concept of hyperbole? Would you like me to define said term for you? Well then while exaggerated (as any fool could see) the point is still valid. There is a huge outflow of south african mercenaries, more specifically of the afrikaner population. Look at conflicts in africa, sierra leone, nambia, mozambique, etc. South african mercs involved. There are around 1500 south african mercenaries in Iraq alone.
And when a man who puts flags of women he has had sexual relations with as his signature attempts to ridicule me without any background knowledge on the point they are ridiculing I am flabbergasted
Weren't you talking about nuclear weapons?
Yeah sorry......
You would think this would degenerate into a debate on whether MAD prevents war or not
I've seen Dr. Strangelove.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
O.P.E., baby...O.P.E.Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
I was aware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Huh?Quote:
And when a man who puts flags of women he has had sexual relations with as his signature attempts to ridicule me without any background knowledge on the point they are ridiculing I am flabbergasted
When working as ski instructor, you very often get invited (specially from private guests) to visit them. Many of us (it is a bit of a tradition) every few years then do a "around the world" tour, visiting all guests at once, living and eating for free, and usually get shown around, having a great time. So the "flags", or countries where you went, is for ski instructors a bit of a inofficial way to determine experience.
Sexual relationships? Don't force your wierd little teenage sexual fantasies on me!
Ah **** I remembered incorrectly what the flags were for dammit.
Ok you have my apology, but just this once
Nah, just having some fun. Got ya though, didn't I?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I totally did those nationalities, or did I? :D
A good lesson in assumptions nevertheless.
To get back on topic however: I think nukes and weapons like them should be forbidden altogether. It is just a bit too much brute strength with a little to little brain behind.
I don't have the source handy now, but there was this excellent research done about natural weapons and control. To summarize it, Wolves and such, with great natural weapons, are generally very controlled in their dealings with their own species. Show your bare throat and the fight is over.
Animals with less dangerous natural weapons however, say birds, often fight to the death or at least mutilation.
This went to show that when a being has a great ability to kill, they usually also have great restraint to do it. Civilization in the jungle, if you want.
I think you start to sense where this is leading.
We have evolved technologically WAY behind our mental barriers to hinder us from using the weapons at hand. We can annihilate the world with the press of a button basically, do we have the intellectual capacity to back up that power?
Look at the Cuba Crisis, we could have been in a nuclear war if not for one individual who stepped up and went against orders (second in command on a soviet sub who refused to give his authorization to use nuclear weaponry even when the ships captain ordered him to).
I would hope that my life and civilization at large is not dependent on someone breaking orders.
This was a bit of a rant, but I hope I got my main point across.
Reminds me of an old Russian joke...
A Russian submarine meets an American one in the ocean. They rise to the
surface and the American captain and some officers come to visit the Russian
submarine. They enter it, go through looking around and finally enter the
nuclear missile control room when the Russian captain suddenly loosing his
temper shouts out with all his might to his crewmembers:
- Who the ********, ******, has thrown the boot on the console?!
Americans say:
- We in America don't use such ugly words.
- America!? There is no America any more! Who the ******* has thrown the boot on
that console?!!
Kadagar your reasoning on banning nuke sounds good till you cop that even rubbish countries like North Korea apparently have nukes. Banning nukes will make the world less safe as small to medium sized powers scramble for the advantage even a single nuke could give them in there particular region.
If every country on earth has say less than a dozen nukes then they will likely be used more often as it's not an extinction event for the entire earth
Exactly when everyone becomes an idealist and develops nuclear weapon, sure id say go for it. Until then we will just have to wait for some sort of magical technology that can counter a few thousand nukes all at once.