This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
North Korea's Nukes
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
128491
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
here's what obama should do...
"north korea, if you don't disarm, i will nuke your sorry azz... so give me ur women, and surrender, and you shall be kept alive in our prison cells..."
the bush way =D
I've never seen so much ignorance concentrated in so few words before. Remarkable.
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
The Bush way is the reason why North Korea has nuclear weapons. Instead of helping build up their infrastructure like the Clinton administration promised we would, Bush decided "we don't negotiate with terrorist nations", and in response North Korea resumed their nuclear weapons production. Now, they have nuclear weapons like they told us they would build if we didn't help them out. Good job.
Post by
283608
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
TheMediator
What about hydrogen bombs? Aren't those much stronger than the atom or nuclear bomb? Why do countries keep these weapons? Why does anyone? Are we so naive to think we'll be able to launch one without retaliation of one back at us? It's all suicidal to keep or use these weapons. I don't understand it, and Einstein himself said the creation of the atom bomb would only lead to greater destruction.
First of all let's get your meanings straight.
Atomic bomb = Nuclear bomb. Just synonyms. Under nuclear bombs there are two existing mainstream types, a fission weapon and a fusion weapon. A fusion weapon is commonly called a hydrogen bomb as it uses deuterium and tritium (heavy hydrogen) as the fusion fuels. Fusion is much more powerful than fission and actually has to use a fission weapon as a detonator to start the fusion reaction due to it being the only thing available that can achieve that kind of heat and pressure.
The weapons that the US invented and used were fission weapons that were in the 10-15 kiloton (thousands of tones of TNT) range. About a decade after the fusion bomb was invented and had yields in the megaton (millions of tons of TNT) range. These are the basis for modern nuclear weapons.
Now why do we have them? You have to look at history in context. The US was involved in a nearly symmetrical "total war" and was doing everything they could to win and victory was far from a guarantee. Most of the major powers in the world at the time had "superweapon" programs and this was the one the US pursued. Shortly after the end of WWII the USSR also obtained these weapons and was in poor relations with the US. So it was kind of like, for lack of a better term, a Mexican standoff. Who drops their weapon first? Now that several other nations have these things we're still basically sitting in a standoff again. Who drops the weapons first and risks total annihilation with no means of defense?
An atom bomb is a type of nuclear weapon. Its like saying a square = a rectangle... yes, squares are rectangles, but rectangles aren't always squares. Not all nuclear bombs are atom bombs. If you're going to nitpick, do it right.
Post by
SirStabAlot
Never fight an idiot. They bring you down to their level, then win with experience.
That is probobly the wisest thing ive EVER heard in my life.
Kudos to you MyTie.
Post by
Erlinn
The Bush way is the reason why North Korea has nuclear weapons. Instead of helping build up their infrastructure like the Clinton administration promised we would, Bush decided "we don't negotiate with terrorist nations", and in response North Korea resumed their nuclear weapons production. Now, they have nuclear weapons like they told us they would build if we didn't help them out. Good job.
This is everything the Bush Administration did wrong in a nutshell. Bush was far too damn proud and stubborn to help anyone he didn't like and he was too damn short-sighted. If he had had any sense at all, he would have tried to establish some ties with North Korea, which might have lead to North Korea not pointing it's bat-^&*! insanity at us. Heck, with time, we could have negotiated a more lenient and peaceful government structure into North Korea, if they trusted us enough.
Post by
SirStabAlot
P.S. Water is not a conductor, electrolytes are.
I didn't know that water had free ions? H is +1 and O is -2. H2 (+2) and O1 (-2) should mean that water doesn't have free ions. I could be very wrong on this. I only know what I read in my spare time, and I have never taken a chemistry class.
Could you explain this further?
That is correct.
Post by
283608
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
283608
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
307945
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
I've never seen so much ignorance concentrated in so few words before. Remarkable.
Really?
Post by
128491
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
IFking
l33t post pudge...
Post by
260787
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Queggy
I don't think anyone has linked this yet,
so
. . .
Post by
299002
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.