quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

I no longer understand your point. You seem to contradict yourself. You seem to be against nukes, but then say "And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions."

Make your self clear or I will end this conversation.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?

I no longer understand your point. You seem to contradict yourself. You seem to be against nukes, but then say "And from what little I understand of nuclear weapons, larger bombs can actually have less fallout than smaller ones due to the high energy generating cleaner fusion reactions."

Make your self clear or I will end this conversation.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think the only bad thing about nuclear bombs in radioactive fallout or something? Maybe he's thinking about the millions of people would be killed by the explosion if it went off in a major city.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do you think the only bad thing about nuclear bombs in radioactive fallout or something? Maybe he's thinking about the millions of people would be killed by the explosion if it went off in a major city. Seems like he's being a better Buddhist than you, what with caring about the lives of others.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I agree nuclear weapons are dangerous. I'm highly skeptical of your understanding of how fallout works and don't agree that a nuke in the Middle East can pose a significant health risk to someone on the other side of the planet.

I'm not contradicting myself, you just can't seem to understand that being anti-Nuclear weapons doesn't require personal imperilment.

quote:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has responded to Barack Obama's call for an end to "loose talk of war" and bluster over Iran by reiterating Israel's "right to defend itself". At the start of what appeared to be an uneasy meeting at the White House – at which Obama was expected to press the Israeli leader to stall any military action against Iran until sanctions have had an opportunity to persuade Tehran to open up its nuclear programme – Netanyahu did not waver from his insistence that he will decide whether to attack. "When it comes to Israel's security, Israel has the sovereign right to make its own decisions. I believe that's why you appreciate, Mr President, that Israel must reserve the right to defend itself," he said. "After all, that's the very purpose of the Jewish state, to restore to the Jewish people control over our destiny. And that's why my supreme responsibility as prime minister of Israel is to ensure that Israel remains the master of its fate." Netanyahu arrived in Washington planning to press Obama to commit to military action against Iran if it crosses specified "red lines" in development of its nuclear programme, or if it fails to meet demands to dismantle its underground nuclear facility in Qom and halt uranium enrichment. US officials say the president does not want to make any such commitment, even though he says the military option remains on the table, out of concern that it will be seen as implicitly endorsing an Israeli attack if the demands are not met. Instead, Obama spoke of the "difficult months" ahead as he appealed for more time for sanctions to persuade Tehran to co-operate with international inspectors and demonstrate that it is not planning to build a nuclear bomb. "It is profoundly in the United States' interest as well to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon," Obama said. "That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever with respect to Iran. We do believe there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, but ultimately the Iranians' regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far. "My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons … When I say all options are at the table, I mean it. Having said that, I know that both the prime minister and I prefer to resolve this diplomatically. We understand the costs of any military action." The meeting follows Obama's speech on Sunday to America's powerful pro-Israel lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), in which he demanded an end to the "loose talk of war" and "bluster" against Iran – a clear reference to the noise out of Netanyahu's government. The Israeli prime minister is to address Aipac on Monday evening. Obama, who has repeatedly and defensively asserted his support for the Jewish state in recent days, also said he "has Israel's back" – a reassurance he repeated to Netanyahu at the White House. "The bond between our two countries is unbreakable," he said. "Our commitment to the security of Israel is rock solid. And as I've said to the prime minister in every single one of our meetings, the United States will always have Israel's back when it comes to Israel's security." Netanyahu, too, sought to emphasise the close ties, even while offering no reassurance to Obama – in public at least – that he is prepared to give sanctions the length of opportunity the US president would like. "Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran's leaders know that, too. For them, you're the Great Satan, we're the Little Satan. For them, we are you and you're us. And you know something, Mr. President – at least on this last point, I think they're right. We are you, and you are us," Netanyahu said. The encounter was infused with some of the chill that has characterised the relationship since the pair first met as leaders three years ago and Obama mistakenly thought he could press Netanyahu into halting the construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – a major obstacle to serious peace talks with the Palestinians. Last year, Netanyahu humiliated Obama by lecturing him in public at the White House on the Holocaust and Israel's history. The two sides were clearly determined to paper over the differences on Iran as best they could, although a White House proposal to issue a joint statement of intent after the talks looked uncertain. Tellingly, Obama made only a brief reference to the Palestinian issue and Netanyahu said nothing about it at all, demonstrating how much it has been sidelined by the Iran crisis, to the Israeli leadership's gratification. The US president's speech to Aipac received a mixed reaction in Israel and the US. Ayoub Kara, a deputy minister and member of Netanyahu's Likud party, criticised Obama over his warning against loose talk of war and bluster. "There is a saying that it's easier to watch a fire from far away," he said. "We, not the US, are facing an existential threat. If Israel doesn't bluster, the US will also be in danger, because Iran's missiles will reach them too. Israel is doing everything possible to keep the world safe, and it's unfortunate that the White House doesn't see things the way we see them here." But the Israeli opposition leader, Tzipi Livni, blamed Netanyahu for deteriorating relations with Obama. "Relations between Israel and the US have become political during Netanyahu's term," she said. "Netanyahu made Israel an issue in the American election and it's a mistake. Netanyahu must understand that relations with with the US are an essential need. Our deterrence depends on it. He will be tested on whether he is able to draft the US into our interests or whether he will continue just manipulating internal American politics." At the Aipac conference on Monday, the veteran but soon-to-be-ex senator Joe Lieberman said the choice as to whether military action is used is Iran's – but Lieberman was not shy of proposing the use of force. "So far, though economic sanctions applied have clearly effected the Iranian economy, the fact is they haven't led the fanatics who today run that country to slow up their nuclear weapons programme one iota," he said. "The Iranian regime must hear a message from us and we must state it loud and clear: either you peacefully negotiate an end to your illicit nuclear activities or they will be ended for you by military attack." But opinion in Washington is divided. The Israeli leadership arrived in the city to be confronted by a full-page ad in the Washington Post signed by retired US generals and intelligence officers declaring: Mr President: Say No to War of Choice with Iran. "Military action at this stage is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous – for the United States and for Israel," it says above the names of five former army and marine corps generals. Much of the American public appears to agree. A Pew Research poll released on Monday says that 51% of Americans want the US to stay neutral if Israel attacks Iran.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I disagree, plan and simple. You haven't given anything but your opinion.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And what have you offered to support your position that a nuclear exchange in the Middle East would have deep ecological effects on the entire world?

You're the one making a claim here, I'm occupying the position of the skeptic.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I am wrong, then what is the issue?

If I am right, then what is the issue?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ 51%? Damn that's close. I've got to think that many of them, perhaps as much as a quarter of that number would be swayed if Iran pulls another stunt.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
wtf are you talking about?

I said:

"I agree to a point. The consequences of a nuclear exchange in the middle east is direr for the rest of the world. That is why it is important to do whatever is needed to make sure that never happens. Remember that nuclear fallout can encircle the Earth."

What in the world does that have to do with what you said?

Did you not read anything I posted?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm not so sure. The American public has a tendency to get tired of war. That number might stay fairly steady unless Iran does something outlandish.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If you're wrong, then you need another argument against nuking Iran that isn't quite so Hobbesian since there's no direct danger to America.

If you're right, then you're still only against nuclear war for the apparent reason that you think it might effect you directly if a nuke goes off 5000 miles away.

(spoiler alert: you're wrong and you don't understand how fallout works and that detecting trace amounts of radiation and a public health risk are two different things)

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think the reason a nuclear war in the Middle East is a bad thing is because millions of people will be killed, not because the radiation levels by my house will rise by a fraction of a percent. I realize that on the internet such anti-Libertarian thinking is frowned on but I'm always amazed when it fairs to even occur to people

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
1. wtf

No wonder you are not making any sense. I never said anything about nuking Iran. I am also against nuclear war because, like all war, people die. I only added fallout to show it can effect all of us, just in case you are one of those people who don't give a damn. I made no point about the US and or its safety. I care about everyone who would be killed.

Sense the US will be safe, in your opinion, why don't we just nuke Iran?

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol how do you still not get this point?

Because killing millions of people is bad, m'kay.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What point? I think you are just being a troll.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The point that disagreeing with your notion of the effects of fallout and the real impact of a ME nuclear exchange doesn't mean I don't think there are compelling reasons against such a conflict.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you have not proved me wrong.

A modern hydrogen bomb can spread fallout around the world.

Show me proof that is wrong, or shut up.

Fin!

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Negative proof fallacy.

Present evidence for your claim before asking for counter-evidence. That's just a basic issue of logic.

For instance, if you want me to disprove the existence of an invisible green man I must have reason, such as there being evidence FOR the existence of such a man.

quote: (post)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do winds circle the Earth? Yes

Can atomic blasts shoot radiation into the upper atmosphere? Yes

Are the nukes today far more powerful then those tested in the past? Yes