Dan_Dare Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 It makes me feel so safe that the best part of the govenment want to scrap our nuclear missiles. Just as other countrys who you woudnt trust with a pointy stick are developing them. I think we have enough.
danny Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 World destroying thermo nuclear weapons. The point was we might not have any in 20 years time. Just in time for any of these states to develop there own. Im not saying we should have more than we have. We could probably manage with less. But having a nuclear deterant has stopped anyone using them. Do you think america would have used them in 1945 if japan had also had them?
Ashley Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Our government are doing so in compliance (I would presume anyway) with the Hiroshima Peace Movement (may not be the actual name) in which they want to eradicate all nuclear weapons by 2020. North Korea may just be a bit of tricky problem. But it would be for the best if all were eradicated. The tremendous and pointless destruction they can do is worrying. And Danny's closing question is moot really as the whole point of using them was because nobody else had them and America wanted to 'shut down' Japan. And I don't like answering hypotheticals :p
danny Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Its got nothing to do with treatys. Just money. But is it a false economy?
Nintendohnut Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 The point was we might not have any in 20 years time. Just in time for any of these states to develop there own. Im not saying we should have more than we have. We could probably manage with less. But having a nuclear deterant has stopped anyone using them. Do you think america would have used them in 1945 if japan had also had them? They're never going to get rid of all of them, that's just stupid. They'll get rid of most of them because let's face it nobody needs more than 1000 nukes. What's the point in having more? And they're not saying that they'll get rid of all of them and leave the country undefended. I know the goverement is stupid sometimes but if you think they'd destroy all of their weapons just as another country is developing them then... well, you're also stupid :p The point is either way as soon as one nuke is launched the world is destoryed, because whoever launches first will be bombed by the other country or its allies before the first one strikes. So ultimately as soon as that happens everyone fires and everyone dies. Even if there was one launched against us and we had none to fire, the US or someone else would certianly launch against Korea as they would be a threat to the US and the rest of the world. Everyone is either completely safe, or totally in danger, depending on how you look at it. Ether way, there's nothing you or me can do about it.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Its got nothing to do with treatys. Just money. But is it a false economy? Well the last smidgen of optimism in me would like to believe it has part to do with the peace treaty :p They're never going to get rid of all of them, that's just stupid. They'll get rid of most of them because let's face it nobody needs more than 1000 nukes. What's the point in having more? And they're not saying that they'll get rid of all of them and leave the country undefended. I know the goverement is stupid sometimes but if you think they'd destroy all of their weapons just as another country is developing them then... well, you're also stupid :p This is how we got into this mess really, the fear that someone else may do something so lets arm ourselves with WMDs. Its understandable but problematic.
danny Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 They're never going to get rid of all of them, that's just stupid. They'll get rid of most of them because let's face it nobody needs more than 1000 nukes. What's the point in having more? And they're not saying that they'll get rid of all of them and leave the country undefended. I know the goverement is stupid sometimes but if you think they'd destroy all of their weapons just as another country is developing them then... well, you're also stupid :p The point is either way as soon as one nuke is launched the world is destoryed, because whoever launches first will be bombed by the other country or its allies before the first one strikes. So ultimately as soon as that happens everyone fires and everyone dies. Even if there was one launched against us and we had none to fire, the US or someone else would certianly launch against Korea as they would be a threat to the US and the rest of the world. Everyone is either completely safe, or totally in danger, depending on how you look at it. Ether way, there's nothing you or me can do about it. No they are planning or at least talking about gettting rid of them. Well not getting rid of them but not replacing the submarines as they come to the end of there working life. No submarines means no nuclear weapons. Every way of launching these weapons has been looked in to an for the UK submarines is the only real way. Air is a non starter the planes could be shot down far to easily, if they were to be ground operated an area nearly the size of wales would be needed. ships could be done but there are so many advantages to them being on subs to make it a non starter. And trust be we have not signed a treaty to say we will get rid of our weapons. Just ones that say we wont get any more. Although we are allowed to replace existing ones. We have agreed to try and reduce them. Its about money FACT.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Yeah sorry me getting muddled, but we should. I understand given the current climate why people would be apprehensive. So umm, we = all countries. (click for larger) (I felt it to be necessary)
danny Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Yeah sorry me getting muddled, but we should. I understand given the current climate why people would be apprehensive. So umm, we = all countries. (click for larger) (I felt it to be necessary) But suerly countrys having these weapons guarantees they will not be used? Seems to have worked since 1945. Personally i dont want to risk finding out if it would work without countrys having them.
Ashley Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 Isn't it six of one though (and again another damn hypothetical :p)? Yes, none have been used (on other countries) since 1945 but none could be used if we got rid of them all (and I know obviously there is the worry someone will rebuild them and that is understandable. It appears to be in human nature to try and kill eh?) However, the mere existence of nuclear technology has caused a great deal of damage outside of Japan and its debatable whether or not the pros outweigh the cons. The topic seems to have stirred the pacifist in me :p
danny Posted July 8, 2009 Posted July 8, 2009 But i think its a safe bet that there would be countrys that would develop a weapon and then they could hold there world to ransom. It would only take one country. Its a nice idea but it just woudnt work.
Sheikah Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 NHS UK: The UK has the third highest number of confirmed cases of swine flu in the world, with over 9,000 people having had the virus since the outbreak two months ago. Oh yes.
Ashley Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Most of them where I live lols :p I stumbled upon BBC news last night and they were discussing something to do with tuition fees and cost of student living or whatever. Two things irked me; 1) some guy showed a typical dorm at London School of Economics, then they interviewed some people at Newcastle Uni. Why the distance? and 2) they finished it up with a clip of The Young Ones -_-
Slaggis Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Most of them where I live lols :p I stumbled upon BBC news last night and they were discussing something to do with tuition fees and cost of student living or whatever. Two things irked me; 1) some guy showed a typical dorm at London School of Economics, then they interviewed some people at Newcastle Uni. Why the distance? and 2) they finished it up with a clip of The Young Ones -_- Tuition fees are a total joke at the moment. I would type some long ranting post pretending I know about them, but I don't.
Ashley Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Looking at them, they're the same as they have been for the last few years. Factoring in the £100ish they add every year for...funsies. Except that year they added £2,000 for mega funsies.
Dante Posted July 10, 2009 Author Posted July 10, 2009 Councilors claim city is 'leading catalyst' for development in UK and plans to grow it further Plans are afoot to spent £5m on building a 'computer games academy' in Liverpool, UK. According to a report in The Liverpool Daily Post, a National Games Academy in the city would be built to help it become 'breeding ground for the finest computer minds in the country'. Students at the academy would be trained in art, coding and technology - and even offer testing facilities, work palcement learning and links to the Media City in Salford. They would also get IP and business advice, plus mentoring. Liverpool is already home to SCEE Liverpool and its Evolution sister studio, plus Bizarre Creations and a number of smaller studios - local authorities boast the region is the 'most significant' games cluster in the UK, employing 1,500 people (of course, we're sure the developers in Brighton, Dundee, the North East, the Midlands, et al. would all beg to differ...). According to the Post, City's enterprise leader Cllr Gary Millar and his Liberal Democrat party colleague, Cllr Laurence Sidorczuk, are 'behind the plans to capitalise on the region's gaming industry'. develop-online.net
Happenstance Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Baby sitter sleeps with 14 year old boy 28-year-old Idaho woman Summer Nelson has been charged with having sex with a 14-year-old boy she was baby sitting in 2007. According to reports, Summer Nelson was a friend of the boy’s mother and regularly baby sit for the family. The abuse only came to light when the boy’s mother grew suspicious when she noticed how much attention Summer Nelson was giving the boy. Nelson is alleged to have told the boys siblings that she was in love with him as well. Local police say the abuse was first reported in December 2008, and they have ascertained that Summer Nelson and the boy had sexual contact on four occasions http://www.inquisitr.com/28631/summer-nelson-baby-sitter-sleeps-with-14-year-old-boy/
nightwolf Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 develop-online.net Oh piss at them, games companies would only turn around and tell them they aren't specialised anyway, just like they do with uni courses.
Dyson Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Wish I had a babysitter like that. Was thinking the same
MoogleViper Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Liverpool is already home to SCEE Liverpool Who'd have thought it? Was thinking the same We all were.
Recommended Posts