Regime Change!

[StevenSeagal]

Haven't we heard this before?

 

“I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime,” Bolton told reporters after an off-the-record speech to the Hudson Institute, a nonpartisan policy research organization.

 

 

Here we go again...

[kevbone]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

[joblo7]

keep your eyes on the prize...... oil and world domination.

 

tell the peons we're there for freedom and justice and their security and they will support us.....

[kevbone]

tell the peons we're there for freedom and justice and their security and they will support us.....

 

Even if this is not true?

[foraker]

keep your eyes on the prize...... oil and world domination.

 

tell the peons we're there for freedom and justice and their security and they will support us.....

 

do it for the children! (but don't save oil for the children, use it now so the chinese children can't have it!)

[Seahawks]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

Okay lets say we go Kevboners way, then when Bid laden gets his bomb how do you keep it out of NY or LA or elsewhere? Becuase they don't care and you and everyone who not a muslim deserves to die. How would you then police that situation??? What are your answers???? Lets here then instead of the stupid not thought out bitching of a liberal. I'm not talking about Iraq here I want to know how you handle these type of countries with nukes.

[JayB]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child?

 

Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit.

 

Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others?

 

 

Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all?

[Seahawks]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child?

 

Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit.

 

Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others?

 

 

Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all?

 

LOL that much too deep for Kevboner. his reply will be "This thread sucks!"

[kevbone]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

Okay lets say we go Kevboners way, then when Bid laden gets his bomb how do you keep it out of NY or LA or elsewhere? Becuase they don't care and you and everyone who not a muslim deserves to die. How would you then police that situation??? What are your answers???? Lets here then instead of the stupid not thought out bitching of a liberal. I'm not talking about Iraq here I want to know how you handle these type of countries with nukes.

 

 

Hey Sea....the Bush crime family and all the Rep...who voted to go to war have killed more people than Sadam and Binladin TOGETHER.

[Weekend_Climberz]

I say, give everyone on the planet a nuke and then I'll take a long hike in the woods. Let the cards fall where they may.

[Seahawks]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

Okay lets say we go Kevboners way, then when Bid laden gets his bomb how do you keep it out of NY or LA or elsewhere? Becuase they don't care and you and everyone who not a muslim deserves to die. How would you then police that situation??? What are your answers???? Lets here then instead of the stupid not thought out bitching of a liberal. I'm not talking about Iraq here I want to know how you handle these type of countries with nukes.

 

 

Hey Sea....the Bush crime family and all the Rep...who voted to go to war have killed more people than Sadam and Binladin TOGETHER.

 

Once again that is a typical Liberal answer. No thought. Face it the democrats want the whitehouse in '08 and are willing to sell there country for it. Iraq sucks but they think the answer is to just leave. Stupid. They have to answers. They want Iraq to fail and that where its sad. They would rather have there politics over what good for the US. They know that stabilizing Iraq is what needs to be done and then get out but they are pussies.

[kevbone]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child?

 

Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit.

 

Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others?

 

 

Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all?

 

JayB…I agree that not all the crazy Islamic freaks out there get to posses nukes, but to for the USA to come across as the sane ones here is crazy. Let’s not forget of all the countries that have nukes, WE ARE YOU ONLY ONES TO USE THEM, the USA's track record is not that good. Bush might not wear a turban, but he is in the same league as Binladin and all the other FREAKS out there. What makes us in the righteous to have them over some other country? Why do we get to stand on the moral high ground? Why? Have we (USA) proven that we are saner than the rest? FUCK NO. And you all know it.

 

Lets all agree, they ALL need to be destroyed.

 

Edited March 21, 2007 by kevbone

[Weekend_Climberz]

Stabilizing Iraq?? So, what's your plan? Nuke'em all? Setup more checkpoints? Add more troops?

 

Why can't we just eat our pride and start talking with the countries in the area? I find it very hard to believe that most Iranians want to kill Americans. The ones I work with are more invigorated about being in America than most home-grown Americans I've met.

[Seahawks]

Why is it that we can have weapons of mass destruction, but we tell others they cannot? WTF….why are we the worlds police? Tell me Steven…..WHY?

 

'Bone, have you put as much thought into this particular issue as you have into...refusing to vaccinate your child?

 

Let's explore the sentiments that you've put forward here a bit.

 

Is this an argument against any restrictions on the production or distribution of nuclear weapons? Are you proposing that it should be restricted to nation states, or should group with the means and the will to acquire them be able to, no matter what their intentions? If you'd restrict membership to nation states, what criteria would you use to limit access? The ability to safeguard them? The political stability of the said nation state, and the likelihood that the whomever is currently in control will be overthrown by actors whose ideology and behavior cannot be predicted with any certainty? The probability that they will transfer the weapons to those who would use them against others?

 

 

Even if you are convinced that the principle of "fairness" supercedes rationality and that any group that wants nukes should have them, regardless of their character or intent, do you think that this is an ethically sound position? As an example, assume that country B wants nuclear weapons so that they can anihiliate country A, and tens of millions of people in country A will be killed if country A makes good on its threats. Is it ethical for the rest of the world to support country B's nuclear aspirations because it's not fair to deny country B access to the technology that other countries already have access to. If you resided in country A, would this change your thinking at all?

 

JayB…I agree that not all the crazy Islamic freaks out there get to posses nukes, but to for the USA to come across as the sane ones here is crazy. Let’s not forget of all the countries that have nukes, WE ARE YOU ONLY ONES TO USE THEM. Bush might not wear a turban, but he is in the same league as Binladin and all the other FREAKS out there. What makes us in the righteous to have them over some other country? Why do we get to stand on the moral high ground? Why? Have we (USA) proven that we are saner than the rest? FUCK NO. And you all know it.

 

Lets all agree, they ALL need to be destroyed.

 

Boner do you know why we used the bomb in WWII???? Your ingnorant. You don't think that was thought out?? You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it?? How Many soldiers were we losing on each island on the way to Japan???? Where we to invade Japan in light that they would never surrender??? Answers. Stop your stupid answer of we are the only ones to ever use it. Thats just stupid.

[Seahawks]

Stabilizing Iraq?? So, what's your plan? Nuke'em all? Setup more checkpoints? Add more troops?

 

Why can't we just eat our pride and start talking with the countries in the area? I find it very hard to believe that most Iranians want to kill Americans. The ones I work with are more invigorated about being in America than most home-grown Americans I've met.

 

I'm sure its just like the other Irainian that runs the country that says the Holocaust never happened, That Isreal should be whipped off the face of the earth just like America. Yea he wants you dead too.

 

Problem is the ones you talk about aren't running things the Mullies are.

[kevbone]

You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it??

 

 

Nazi's? I thought we bombed Japan……mmmm…I must have missed that day in history class.

 

 

Stop your stupid answer of we are the only ones to ever use it. Thats just stupid.

 

Again….I must have missed that day in history class…..is there another documented use of a nuke on this planet?

 

 

[Seahawks]

You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it??

 

 

Nazi's? I thought we bombed Japan……mmmm…I must have missed that day in history class.

 

 

Stop your stupid answer of we are the only ones to ever use it. Thats just stupid.

 

Again….I must have missed that day in history class…..is there another documented use of a nuke on this planet?

 

 

Thought so, nothing in there.

 

[kevbone]

Thats what I thought. You got nothing.

[Seahawks]

Thats what I thought. You got nothing.

 

Answer my question then. You will not becuase you have no answers. You just like to hear yourself complain.

[tvashtarkatena]

Why is it always L.A. that gets nuked? Ever notice that? Why not some other city in need of quick remodeling, such as...

 

Phoenix. They probably wouldn't notice the extra heat.

 

Vegas. What happens there, stays there; Less fallout hazard.

 

'tlanna. Capitol of the 'New South'. What a dump! Ever try to fly in there? Drive.

 

New Orleans. Who's gonna give a shit a second time?

 

Colorado Springs. You were praying for Armeggedon, right?

 

Boulder. OMG, they've vaporized my new Hummer!

 

Dallas/Fortworth. Do I even need to provide justification here?

 

Crawford. Ah, sweet irony.

 

Sultan. That light on Hwy 2 has to go.

 

 

[JayB]

Bone - these were questions that you can answer as an individual. Whether the US or any other other country could ever be perceived by everyone in the world as the ideal arbiter of the decisions concerning who should have nukes is another matter.

 

But back to your statements. Why is it that Islamic groups who want nuclear weapons should not have them? If you can come up with criteria that apply to various Islamic groups, is it not conceivable that the arguments that you bring forward against the Islamic groups might also be applicable to certain nations as well?

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it??

 

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program.

Edited March 21, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[Seahawks]

Why is it always L.A. that gets nuked? Ever notice that? Why not some other city in need of quick remodeling, such as...

 

Phoenix. They probably wouldn't notice the extra heat.

 

Vegas. What happens there, stays there; Less fallout hazard.

 

'tlanna. Capitol of the 'New South'. What a dump! Ever try to fly in there? Drive.

 

New Orleans. Who's gonna give a shit a second time?

 

Colorado Springs. You were praying for Armeggedon, right?

 

Boulder. OMG, they've vaporized my new Hummer!

 

Dallas/Fortworth. Do I even need to provide justification here?

 

Crawford. Ah, sweet irony.

 

Sultan. That light on Hwy 2 has to go.

 

 

Very good. 10 for creative.

[Seahawks]

You don't think the Nazi's who were making the same bomb would not used it??

 

Uh, not that I need to point out Seahawk's ignorance to anyone here, but Nazi Germany did not have a viable nuclear weapons development program.

 

They actually did. Do some reading. They were making heavy water. US and Britian were very concerned. They were pursuing the bomb.

[Seahawks]

In January of 1939, the German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann published the results of an historic experiment: after bombarding uranium with neutrons—neutrally charged particles—they found barium, an element roughly half the size of uranium. Their former colleague Lise Meitner, who a few months before had been forced to flee Germany and seek refuge in Sweden, and her nephew Otto Frisch realized that the uranium nucleus had split in two. These revelations touched off a frenzy of scientific work on fission around the world.

 

The German "uranium project" began in earnest shortly after Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939, when German Army Ordnance established a research program led by the Army physicist Kurt Diebner to investigate the military applications of fission. By the end of the year the physicist Werner Heisenberg had calculated that nuclear fission chain reactions might be possible. When slowed down and controlled in a "uranium machine" (nuclear reactor), these chain reactions could generate energy; when uncontrolled, they would be a "nuclear explosive" many times more powerful than conventional explosives.

 

Whereas scientists could only use natural uranium in a uranium machine, Heisenberg noted that they could use pure uranium 235, a rare isotope, as an explosive. In the summer of 1940, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, a younger colleague and friend of Heisenberg's, drew upon publications by scholars working in Britain, Denmark, France, and the United States to conclude that if a uranium machine could sustain a chain reaction, then some of the more common uranium 238 would be transmuted into "element 94," now called plutonium. Like uranium 235, element 94 would be an incredibly powerful explosive. In 1941, von Weizsäcker went so far as to submit a patent application for using a uranium machine to manufacture this new radioactive element.

 

Researchers knew that they could manufacture significant amounts of uranium 235 only by means of isotope separation. At first German scientists led by the physical chemist Paul Harteck tried thermal diffusion in a separation column. In this process, a liquid compound rises as it heats, falls as it cools, and tends to separate into its lighter and heavier components as it cycles around the column. But by 1941 they gave up on this method and started building centrifuges. These devices use centripetal force to accumulate the heavier isotopes on the outside of the tube, where they can be separated out. Although the war hampered their work, by the fall of the Third Reich in 1945 they had achieved a significant enrichment in small samples of uranium. Not enough for an atomic bomb, but uranium 235 enrichment nonetheless.

 

Nearing a Nazi bomb

Uranium machines needed a moderator, a substance that would slow down the neutrons liberated by chain reactions. In the end, the project decided to use heavy water—oxygen combined with the rare heavy isotope of hydrogen—instead of water or graphite. This was not (as one of the many myths associated with the German nuclear weapons effort had it) because of a mistake the physicist Walther Bothe made when he measured the neutron absorption of graphite. Rather, it appeared that the Norsk Hydro plant in occupied Norway could provide the amounts of heavy water they needed in the first stage of development at a relatively low cost.

 

 

Heisenberg and his colleagues did not push as hard as they could have to make atomic bombs.

 

 

 

The Norwegian resistance and Allied bombers eventually put a stop to Norwegian production of heavy water (see Norwegian Resistance Coup and See the Spy Messages. But by that time it was not possible to begin the production of either pure graphite or pure heavy water in Germany. In the end, the German scientists had only enough heavy water to conduct one or two large-scale nuclear reactor experiments at a time.

 

By the very end of the war, the Germans had progressed from horizontal and spherical layer designs to three-dimensional lattices of uranium cubes immersed in heavy water. They had also developed a nuclear reactor design that almost, but not quite, achieved a controlled and sustained nuclear fission chain reaction. During the last months of the war, a small group of scientists working in secret under Diebner and with the strong support of the physicist Walther Gerlach, who was by that time head of the uranium project, built and tested a nuclear device.