"Obama must choose - Israel or Iran"

[billvon 2,991]

>1) Israel is willing to work for peace, and is not threatening to annihilate anyone, and;
>2) Iran publicly threatens to annihilate Israel, and is unwilling to work for peace.

I like it! As black and white (and as biased) as it gets.

Which would you rather have in your neighborhood, John?

1) A heavily armed killer who kills a member of your family
2) Gun control laws that get him arrested before he kills anyone

The choice there is obvious.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>1) Israel is willing to work for peace, and is not threatening to annihilate anyone, and;
>2) Iran publicly threatens to annihilate Israel, and is unwilling to work for peace.

I like it! As black and white (and as biased) as it gets.

Really? In that case, please provide your proofs where:

1. President Peres is saying that Iran should be annihilated, and where:

2. Ahmadinejad is asking for peace negotiations with Israel.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> His having dropped a bomb does not actually qualify him any more
> than anyone else on the subject.

Being trained on how to drop nuclear bombs on cities - and then actually dropping nuclear bombs on cities - does indeed qualify him to be able to speak about whether "nuking those bastards" is a foolish statement for most people to make.

only in your opinion, for the reasons I've clearly stated. If you'd rather duck the question of why nukes are special, fine. You're wrong.

[billvon 2,991]

>only in your opinion, for the reasons I've clearly stated.

Yes, it is my opinion. But feel free to believe that you know just as much about using nuclear weapons on cities as a bombardier who has actually used them on cities.

> If you'd rather duck the question of why nukes are special, fine.

They are far more destructive than conventional weapons, on a pound per pound basis.

Their fallout kills and sickens people long after they are used.

The material they are made of is deadly, even when not used for its intended purpose.

We are terrified of them (as are most people.)

Plutonium implosion weapons are very hard to make due to stringent technical requirements. Uranium gun-type weapons are easier to make, but the uranium needs very careful processing, which is difficult.

They need to be detonated in the air to maximize their destructive potential, which requires altitude fusing. Most conventional weapons detonate on impact.

Would you like any more?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Most conventional weapons detonate on impact.

Airburst is NOT uncommon for conventional weapons, as you try to imply. In fact, it is the PREFERRED fusing for lightly armored vehicles and troops in the open.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 2,991]

>Airburst is NOT uncommon for conventional weapons, as you try to imply.

I didn't say it was. I said most conventional weapons detonate on impact. This type of fusing would greatly minimize the destructive potential of the nuclear weapon, and indeed the development of an accurate altimeter-based fuse was a critical step in the development of the first nuclear weapons.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

> If you'd rather duck the question of why nukes are special, fine.

They are far more destructive than conventional weapons, on a pound per pound basis.

Their fallout kills and sickens people long after they are used.

The material they are made of is deadly, even when not used for its intended purpose.

We are terrified of them (as are most people.)

People are also irrationally afraid of being eaten by a shark, though being run over by a boat or just simply drowning leaves you just as dead.

Foreign policy should be based on rational thinking, not emotional fears.

Getting burned or suffocated to death is just as bad as getting vaporized by an atomic blast. And starving to death or dying of disentary isn't any better than dying of radiation poisoning. More people died immediately in the Tokyo bombings than at Hiroshima. We know the radiation death toll, we don't know the consequential Tokyo deaths from leveling half the city.

The main reasons against nuking a city in the middle east versus bombing it to pieces only concern reactions from the other nuclear powers. The people would be just as dead.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Airburst is NOT uncommon for conventional weapons, as you try to imply.

I didn't say it was. I said most conventional weapons detonate on impact. This type of fusing would greatly minimize the destructive potential of the nuclear weapon, and indeed the development of an accurate altimeter-based fuse was a critical step in the development of the first nuclear weapons.

The point is that fusing is dependent upon what the target is, not whether the munition is conventional or nuclear. Airburst fusing is most effective against area targets. Contact fusing is more effective against point targets or hardened targets.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

I would not want to be in the way of a nuke detonating at ground level.
I'm just saying.

[mnealtx 0]

I wouldn't want to be in the way of ANY nuke detonating....

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

An adopted Jew? What do you mean?

I am a Christian.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.