N.Korea Has Bought Complete Nuclear Bomb

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 29, 2005, 8:20 pm

Zaelath wrote:I know what it is, but it only killed 4000 Brits between 1914 and 1918 from a total score of about 900,000 deaths.

It's a weapon, it's destructive, but I hardly think it qualifies in any sense as "mass".

So, what is it you think Saddam used eh?

Not all he used, but this is something he did use.

*EDIT*

Little more info for you:

The British army (including the British Empire) had 188,000 gas casualties but only 8,100 fatalities amongst them. It is believed that the nation that suffered the most fatalities was Russia (over 50,000 men) while France had 8,000 fatalities. In total there were about 1,250,000 gas casualties in the war but only 91,000 fatalities (less than 10%) with over 50% of these fatalities being Russian. However, these figures do not take into account the number of men who died from poison gas related injuries years after the end of the war; nor do they take into account the number of men who survived but were so badly incapacitated by poison gas that they could hold down no job once they had been released by the army.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/po ... ar_one.htm

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 29, 2005, 8:47 pm

Saddam post-dates Hiroshima.

The greater numbers of those casualities are chlorine gas, and here's a picture.

British Gas Casualties: 1914-18
Deaths Non-Fatal
Chlorine 1,976 164,457
Mustard Gas 4,086 16,526

This was during a war that lasted more than 4 years.

Yes, the Russians had more deaths from gas, but they also had 1.7 million fatalities in the war, and 5 million casualties. Their risk exposure was a lot higher.

You original thesis was that the US doesn't use WMD and they only return fire. Neither statement is valid.

Put aside the fact that you're the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon, and that at the time people thought it was OK to target civilian cities because of the Germans and English back and forth between London and Dresden etc, the conservative estimates are that you have killed at least 15,000 Iraqi civilians. Carpet bombing of course isn't a WMD either, it's a lot of little weapons.

You can split hairs and dissemble all you like, the continental US has never been attacked by a nation, and the one attack you have sustained at Pearl Harbor was a clearly military target.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 29, 2005, 10:36 pm

Zaelath wrote: You original thesis was that the US doesn't use WMD and they only return fire. Neither statement is valid.

Yes, my claim about the current use of WMD is valid. What isn't valid is your moronic insinuation that the United States policy in 2005 is the same as the policy in 1945.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 29, 2005, 10:59 pm

Aruman wrote:
Zaelath wrote: You original thesis was that the US doesn't use WMD and they only return fire. Neither statement is valid.
Yes, my claim about the current use of WMD is valid. What isn't valid is your moronic insinuation that the United States policy in 2005 is the same as the policy in 1945.

Yet yours that Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US is.

Your blather that the US hasn't used WMD lately, therefore never will, is clearly in contradiction to any deterrent they might have. You don't use them now because you don't have any need. You don't have any country that presents a realistic threat that you would have to respond with that level of force.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 29, 2005, 11:24 pm

Do the 14+ UN Resolutions mean nothing? Do the demands against his country and his shady complacent response to them mean nothing?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 29, 2005, 11:35 pm

Zaelath wrote: Your blather that the US hasn't used WMD lately, therefore never will, is clearly in contradiction to any deterrent they might have. You don't use them now because you don't have any need. You don't have any country that presents a realistic threat that you would have to respond with that level of force.

I said we would use them if they are used on us. I never said we wouldn't use them.

That's the effect of those 'I only see what I want to see' spectacles, or are they the 'I'm going to insert non-existent statements' spectacles.

As far as countries that are a realistic threat as of today, yes, I would say North Korea is a thrreat, but not one that warrants pre-emptive strikes of any kind. China has a much greater influence on North Korea than we do and I think North Korea has more to worry about from China than the US.

As I said earlier, I am more than sure that diplomatic efforts are being made concerning North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.

Do you trust the United States more with WMD or would you trust North Korea with WMD.

From a non-biased standpoint I would have to say the United States, since we don't have some wacked out leader salivating at the opportunity to annex South Korea, and the United States has a long, proven record of NOT using WMD since they became reality, once you get past your fixation on 1945 era policies.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 29, 2005, 11:48 pm

Fash wrote:Do the 14+ UN Resolutions mean nothing? Do the demands against his country and his shady complacent response to them mean nothing?

That didn't make him a threat to the US, what's your point exactly? Your mates in Israel violate UN resolutions too.. hell, the US doesn't give a rats ass about the UN either. I really don't see the relevance.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 30, 2005, 12:04 am

Fash wrote:Do the 14+ UN Resolutions mean nothing? Do the demands against his country and his shady complacent response to them mean nothing?

I love how you idiots use the UN when it fits you and ignores them and downplays them at every other occassion

Besides, 14+ UN resolutions mean nothing when it comes to being a danger ot the US. You know, the other reason for invading?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » January 30, 2005, 12:22 am

so it wasn't the only reason, but it was a reason.. which you always dismiss..

whatever...

we're committed to this thing and now its time to finish it and move on... you can continue to rail against the fact that it happened, but you're spinning your wheels and helping nothing.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 30, 2005, 1:29 am

Ok so we now have dismissed two reasons: WMD and an immediate threat. What is the threat flavour of the day then?

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 30, 2005, 3:01 am

How did this turn around back to Iraq?

Someone has an agenda they won't let go of...

I do believe this was about North Korea no?

Hesten · Post by **Hesten** » January 30, 2005, 8:37 am

Hesten wrote: Aruman, can you please explain that to me, how the US can seriously dictate that the rest of the world shouldnt use nukes, and attack countries on the SUSPICION that they got WMDs, but can still allow their allies to keep their nukes, and even keep developing more nukes on their own? Could it be that other countries might be developing nukes to try and make sure the US does NOT attack them, and that way causing a new cold war?

Hell, personally im NOT very secure in the knowledge that you got a president with control of the worlds largest military power, who A, think his actions are doing gods work, B, try to develop MORE nukes, C, whos international knowledge are smaller than the average 8 year old kids.

I dont feel comfortable with having a person that dont know Africa is a continent, who think that Sweden are neutral and dont have an army (although Sweden had troops in Iraq to support your war), who cant even pronounce nuclear, in charge of nuclear weapons, and actively getting his country to make more.

Heres a quote of my question to Aruman, since he seems unable to find it on his own.

Aruman · Post by **Aruman** » January 30, 2005, 11:13 am

Hesten wrote: Aruman, can you please explain that to me, how the US can seriously dictate that the rest of the world shouldnt use nukes, and attack countries on the SUSPICION that they got WMDs, but can still allow their allies to keep their nukes, and even keep developing more nukes on their own? Could it be that other countries might be developing nukes to try and make sure the US does NOT attack them, and that way causing a new cold war?

Dictate to who? I don't recall the United States ever saying... no, you can't have nukes. I do think that the United States and the UN would like to keep nuclear capability out of less stable governments or governments with leaders who have shown a zeal for aggression toward other countries. Do you think that is a bad thing?

Oh, and before you say "The United States is a country that is aggressive", if that were the case, I think the United States would be much larger than it is.

Hesten wrote: Hell, personally im NOT very secure in the knowledge that you got a president with control of the worlds largest military power, who A, think his actions are doing gods work, B, try to develop MORE nukes, C, whos international knowledge are smaller than the average 8 year old kids.

More Bush bashing... not even going to go into this further. However, see my previous posts about how our system for the use of these weapons works. One person does not have the full authority for their use.

Hesten wrote: I dont feel comfortable with having a person that dont know Africa is a continent, who think that Sweden are neutral and dont have an army (although Sweden had troops in Iraq to support your war), who cant even pronounce nuclear, in charge of nuclear weapons, and actively getting his country to make more.

Fine, you are entitled to you opinion, but remember, unless you are a citizen, and can have some influence through voting, that is all it is... an opinion.

I feel quite comfortable and secure knowing that our system doesn't allow for some half cocked nutjob to push the button any time he gets a wild hair up his butt.