World war 3

[Frozen]

Will it happing?

[Bloodcinder]

The question is purely concerned with nomenclature, not with an understanding of the history and development of the two wars we label WWI and WWII. The answer is "uh."

[deathofcheese]

Yes. UEF vs. Frozen and his strange and not-very-conducive-to-productive-chatter-thread-topics.

[RonDo]

I don't see a WWIII happening in this day and age.

[Z]

If there ever is another World War, I believe it will be the last one.

That said, while I do not think a 3rd World War is likely any time soon, I do believe it is eventually inevitable, one way or another. It just might not be fought with human troops (missiles, computers, drones, etc.)

[Gio Takahashi]

I hope to God that it never happens.

[deathofcheese]

You mean something like SkyNet vs. the humans?

[Charlie]

It would be like SkyNet vs. Humans. Or maybe even SkyNet vs. SkyNet. Or both. And I imagine it happening within the next 20 - 50 years sometime, at the earliest. Whenever the japanese perfect their human brain mimicry, and enough of the models go haywire. Or the second one of the many supercomputers behind nuclear missles gets a virus that can't be erased, or something. Many possibilities.

Either way, even if it's purely traditional in the Human vs. Human factor, it will eventually happen. And with how much technology has progressed, I say the state of the world would be doomed in a matter of months from there on.

EDIT: Yes. The sabbatical lasted a little over a day. Sue me. You might win. :P

[Seegtease]

Before that happens, I'm expecting a second Civil War (in America) with a possible separation of states as individual countries and varied alliances.

[DoomKitty]

That would be dumb.

[Z]

You're thinking short term. A lifetime passes and you have a whole new set of people who, hypothetically, have never experienced war.

[Arainach]

War on that scale. War hasn't exactly gone away.

[llama_egg]

We've actually been pretty close a few times, and I don't see how one won't happen eventually, all it takes is for one thing to go wrong to have the pot boil over.

[EndlessSky]

We haven't had a "real" conventional war in a long long time.

As long as there are humans on this planet there will be war in one shape or form. The next real war we have or even on the scale of a World War III would most likely be very devastating to the countries and/or nations involved.

Especially considering the current political situation and economy which is very frail at the moment and not just for this country either.

I mean imainge if a nuclear weapon or even a dirty bomb were to go off in a city in any of the current major countries. Shit would hit the fan FAST throughout the entire world and doesn't even have to be something on that scale. All it takes is one country to break the last straw of another and it is all downhill from that.

We can only hope and pray that it is awhile yet to come and when and if something like that happened it doesn't last too long and doesn't cause too much damage.

[deathofcheese]

Um...what about Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm/Shield, Afghanistan, or Iraq? "Conventional" war is never actually conventional. Would you believe that before WWI (and even up to and partially during) "conventional" warfare was considered lining your armies up across from each other and blasting them down, line by line? As technology changes, so does war. Now that we're fighting terrorists who don't really have what we think of as a "proper" army, we have to resort to flushing individual cells out, urban warfare, and all the other things you hear about.

Hell, who's to say that there will even be people fighting in the next war? Aircraft have changed drastically to the point where we can deliver huge bombs with great accuracy (most of the time) that can even travel for a time underground before exploding. Estonia, Russia and China have all been engaged in cyber warfare for the last couple years. Estonia was almost beaten to a pulp and had the entire country's computer infrastructure compromised. Plus, more and more research is going into technologies like autonomous and remote-control drones that can do the fighting without ever compromising a single person.

However, while all these things are changing, I honestly don't believe that human warfare will disappear altogether. Sure, we may blow the shit out of each other with better and better bombs or nukes, but it's still the on-foot soldier who will likely be the one to close out the battle.

[Gio Takahashi]

Wow, something did went wrong with you editing.

[deathofcheese]

Yeah, it was really messed up for me today. I'm home now, so it's better.

An additional thought about WW3, if we don't handle the current situation with Iran, North Korea or Israel/Palestine correctly, THAT will be the next big-ass war.

[RonDo]

Iran vs Israel is the current hot spot of choice. I am not sure if that would be enough to start a World War as opposed to say, a large Middle East conflict.

Also, I'm interested to see how the China and Taiwan scenario plays out in the future as well. It has been pretty quiet as of late..but I imagine China doesn't want to really stir stuff up until after the olympics are over with.

[Arainach]

Given that if Israel attacks Iran Iran will wreak absolute havoc on global petroleum supplies? Oh, yeah, that'd involve the world real quick.

[EndlessSky]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars, they are small conflicts, believe me.

I really don't want to get into the whole political and Iraq war discussion though for obvious reasons. So lets keep it at the discussion of future conflicts and not current or past ones.

Also, you will be surprised at what technology current human foot soldiers have and I'm sure they already are using stuff we wouldn't even dream existed. The millitary is usually 10-20 years more advanced than the public thinks they are.

[Arainach]

No, really, the opposite is true. Like NASA, the stuff they're using the grounds, the stuff they're using has been tested for at least 10-20 years.

[llama_egg]

Personally I find it to be much better to talk about the current battles being waged, as these are what going to push things over. And I'll just keep it at this, Afghanistan, while not deemed a war in the public or politic sense, but try to say that to those who are/where in the forces and they will tell you a completely different things.

[Arainach]

Also, EndlessSky: We've been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II and spent more money on it (500 billion versus 341 billion, not counting the added economic costs which estimate Iraq at closer to 2 trillion - for comparison, the total financial cost of World War II for all nations involved is estimated at near a trillion), and you're going to tell me it's not a War?

[Seegtease]

Time and financial debt does not a war determine.

[llama_egg]

What does determine a war then? I still stand by the fact that Afghanistan and Iraq has escalated to war status, whether or not the government says that to the public.

[deathofcheese]

I think what determines a war, in the strictest sense of the law, is whether Congress declares it a war. I don't follow politics that much, nor do I really pay attention to C-Span, but I'm pretty sure Congress allowed the military to execute maneuvers (or however it is that you say "lol, gogo 2 kik som towelhead butt!") in Afganistan, followed by Iraq. To me, that says, "go ahead, make war on them" (probably the terrorists, but who knows what language was used?), which kinda supports the whole Congress-declares-a-war idea.

[EndlessSky]

No, really, the opposite is true. Like NASA, the stuff they're using the grounds, the stuff they're using has been tested for at least 10-20 years.

Wrong, I know first hand this is not the case with the military. They are many more years ahead than they like you to think. There is many reasons for this, first off it obvious not to let the enemy know of any advantages you have and to keep the edge on the enemy.

[Seegtease]

Length and expense may be a consequence of something being raised to a "war" status, but it does not determine whether or not it is a war.

[Arainach]

Was Vietnam a War? The answer to that question determines whether or not Iraq is a war.

[Bloodcinder]

Inasmuch as North and South Korea were at war with each other, yes, it was a war to somebody. We sent troops to get involved in the conflict, but we never declared war. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution gave President Johnson the power to conduct the military in Vietnam without declaring a war.

Not only is the situation too different for comparison, Ary, but Vietnam also wasn't even a war. I think you should consider the modern conflicts on their own merit rather than trying to falsely associate them with wars that were never really wars.

[Seegtease]

Actually I'm not even sure what is different in a war. I know the president must declare it for it to be official, but what suddenly changes with how we operate in a "conflict" or a "war"?

[Bloodcinder]

It's purely in the name and level of "officialness."

[Seegtease]

We could nuke the entire country without calling it war?

[Bloodcinder]

If Congress authorized the President. Johnson escalated the fighting in Vietnam after he was given the authority, but I doubt he was given the authority to destroy the country. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have "lost." I don't think anybody's going to authorize the President to nuke a country any time soon.

[deathofcheese]

Actually I'm not even sure what is different in a war. I know the president must declare it for it to be official, but what suddenly changes with how we operate in a "conflict" or a "war"?
Congress has to declare war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_War). The President only has the power to repel attacks and engage in small levels of conflict.

[Arainach]

After World War II and the advent of nuclear weapons, the old concept of declared, drawn-out wars between two nations has become obsolete and useless. We no longer have or will ever again have wars of that caliber. The new, undeclared guerilla conflict style is war - ask anyone who's had to take part in it - and to claim it's not is an offense to them.

[Bloodcinder]

After World War II and the advent of nuclear weapons, the old concept of declared, drawn-out wars between two nations has become obsolete and useless. We no longer have or will ever again have wars of that caliber. The new, undeclared guerilla conflict style is war - ask anyone who's had to take part in it - and to claim it's not is an offense to them.
To whom was this addressed?

[Arainach]

Mostly anyone who would insinuate that anything in the set {Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.} isn't a war.

[Bloodcinder]

That is what I thought. I take personal offense that you would presume I am ignorant of the hardships of military service and then accuse me of offending our troops because I'm addressing the legal definition of the word "war."

[Arainach]

Given that our government has shown over the last 8 years that there is literally no law it is afraid of breaking, I fail to see how a legal definition bears any significance at all.

[EndlessSky]

Actually to say Iraq is a war is an offense to the many thousands and thousands that lost their lives in real wars.

You do realize that we would lose more than the entire amount that has lost their lives in Iraq in the past 7 or 8 years in a DAY in the last real war we had.

small, guerrilla tactic conflicts aren't war. Yes, soldiers fight and lose their lives just the same and it is no different than a real war but it still isn't the same kind of battle and I know what I'm talking about.

Saying Iraq war is the same as World War II and such is an even greater offense to the WWII vets and to the soldiers who gave their lives during it.

That being said human life lost in ANY circumstance is tragic and a hardship and I don't see how war or not it that people that lose their lives and their loved ones lives is any different.

[llama_egg]

Ah, but speak to this Vets, to these soldiers, to ones who have lost friends and loved one. They will tell you it is war, and being one who has lost someone I've known in Afghanistan as well as being in the Canadian Forces for a year will say the exact same thing. And yes, I find it offensive to some caliber that anyone would even say otherwise.

Also small guerrilla tactics is war now, unlike WW2 where one would stay on the battlefield for an extended period of time, as technology changed, so has out tactics. Your in, your out.

As well as I do not believe I've seen anyone yet say that Iraq is the same as WW2 (I might have missed the post), and while I argue the fact that yes, Afghanistan (do not make it sound like it's over, because it's still going strong), and Iraq is (not was) a war, it is not to the same caliber as the World War's where, and it's a horrible idea to even compare the two.

[Arainach]

So a war is determined by how many people die? Are you saying the Soldiers in Iraq aren't working as hard or facing as much threat (arguably more) day-to-day than a soldier in Europe or the Pacific in WWII?

[Bloodcinder]

Let me ask you this, Ary: how do you define war? You may have already said so, but I missed it. I'm not challenging you. I just want to know your answer.

[Arainach]

Government-sanctioned military occupancy of another country involving active combat utilizing at least <arbitrary percentage point> of a military's active resources/manpower/attention. With a separate clause in there for defending against invasion, another thing that I don't think will be an active problem.....ever. This country will fall apart long before we're under threat of invasion thanks to those two freaking huge oceans on either side.

[Seegtease]

The amount of deaths does not determine war, that's for sure. Isn't a cold war a war?

This is because we've finally realized (and have the means - technology - to change) that having a greater number of bodies to throw at somebody is not a very good thing, and not the best way. Because even if we win, we lose.

[Bloodcinder]

Will it happing?
That was the first post. Have you guys noticed how a decent thread came of that? Wow.

[deathofcheese]

Surprising that Frozen started a thread that's lasted this long? Yes.

Do I think the thread's still alive because Frozen hasn't said anything else in it? Yes.

[Gio Takahashi]

Frozen comes back today though :O

[Bloodcinder]

Or not, maybe?

Anyway, I think it's worth asking why were are talking about what is or is not a war. Really. Somebody answer that.

[Arainach]

Iraq and Afghanistan are not wars, they are small conflicts, believe me.It appears to stem back to that quote right there. The reason we're STILL talking about that is because, as with most threads created by Frozen, the actual topic is so mind-numbingly dumb that we were desperate to hook onto anything else.

[Bloodcinder]

Ah. That clarifies it for me. I got into the thread late. That quote is definitely judging wars based on quantifiable details, not the legal definition. I was talking about the legal definition, but I don't know if anybody else was.

[Seegtease]

Frozen comes back today though :O

All I can think of is Majora's Mask.

Dun dun! 6 hours remain!

[Killer_Man_]

Does it really matter? We're fighting for something or the gov't is forcing us to fight for something. -.-

[EndlessSky]

Yes, that is right Killer Man, what I want to say is war or not does not the determine the hardships or tragic loss of life. What difference does it make if someone loses their life in a car accident or in a battle, it is still a loss of life and both are equally valued.

Hell, I've talked to soldiers that said they would RATHER be in a conventional war than in Iraq because of how it is fought etc, it is not a war it is a small guerrilla conflict.

My grandfather fought in World War 2, grandmother lived in Europe at the time, my father fought in Vietnam and we live close to and work at a military base.

[Arainach]

Why, exactly, is Iraq not a war?

[llama_egg]

Why, exactly, is Iraq not a war?

This.

As I have already mentioned, I find the idea of saying that Afghanistan and Iraq not a war insulting. A battle does not need to engulf the world to be a war. And small? I wouldn't call it small, not by a longshot.

Second, guerrilla warfare is how we learn to fight in this day and age, hell, even I have some of that training, and it's their for a reason. One does not want to draw out a battle longer then they have to, as the longer a battle goes for, the higher the chances of a casualty and accidents arise.

Do you not consider it a war because it's not on the scale of WW2? Because we use different tactics? Technology is different? I'm sorry, but no, we (both Canada and US) are both sending troops overseas to fight and not defend (Though depends on how you view it, our troops are defending us by fighting off our soil).

[EndlessSky]

You are completely misunderstanding what I am saying. By the way the meaning of war, ala the dictionary and wikipedia is "War is any large scale, violent conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict)." Note the word LARGE in the quote.

I guess we should call everything where there is a fight or battle or life lost a war then.

I guess what police men do every day risking there lives fighting crime and going against potentily deadly threats, must be an insult not to call that war, but we dont do we.

Wild animals must fight for life against each other every day, that most also be called a war, would be insulting to their lives if not, but still we don't call it a war.

Doctors fight to save the lives of people that are dying all the time, and lives are lost when they can not save them, might as well call that war or it would be insulting, but still we don't.

The definition of war is different to many different people, and I sir am insulted that you insist not calling it war is insulting to them and you assume i have no value of others and don't know what it is like.

There are others and even actually other soldiers that have been in iraq that would agree with me that Iraq is not a real war, how do I know? I've meet with them.

This is precisly why I didn't want to get into this discussion on Iraq.

I will end commenting here, I'm honestly starting to get throughly frustrated and annoyed with this argument and assumptions of others views and values.

[Bloodcinder]

The definition of war is different to many different people, and I sir am insulted that you insist not calling it war is insulting to them and you assume i have no value of others and don't know what it is like.

There are others and even actually other soldiers that have been in iraq that would agree with me that Iraq is not a real war, how do I know? I've meet with them.

This is precisly why I didn't want to get into this discussion on Iraq.

I will end commenting here, I'm honestly starting to get throughly frustrated and annoyed with this argument and assumptions of others views and values.
I for one agree with you, and I hate when people start accusing others of insulting the troops for having an opinion. That's about the only thing they can do to you shy of calling you a Nazi to attack you in a way you can't defend. Just be confident in your opinion.

[Arainach]

EndlessSky: As I've pointed out, we've been in Iraq longer than we were in WW2 and spend more money. We've had at over 1.5 million total troops there including at least 130,000 at any given time. The war itself encompasses an entire country considerably larger than several countries that have had civil conflicts called wars. What part of it isn't large?

[Killer_Man_]

Ary, most people see war as something like WW1-2. Big trenches, bombs going, gas spewing out and etc.

So, really, not many people are going to see Iraq as being a war.

[Arainach]

So unless it's a World War it's not a War?

As I've said before, a lot of countries smaller than Iraq have had "Civil Wars". What about the Israeli wars of the 60s and 70s? They were shorter, cheaper, and took up FAR less space but they were called wars.

[Seegtease]

Hell, I've talked to soldiers that said they would RATHER be in a conventional war than in Iraq because of how it is fought etc, it is not a war it is a small guerrilla conflict.

A conventional war, like World War 2? Do these soldiers realize how many troops were literally sent to die just to take a beach front? They don't want that. They clearly don't know what they are saying.

Edit: And actually, for once, I'm inclined to agree with Ary. Just because it's smaller, less people die, and people use tactics and stealth does not mean it isn't a war. We just use brains and technology instead of sheer manpower. We probably won't ever have a war like WW2 again with such a high death toll.

[Killer_Man_]

So unless it's a World War it's not a War?

As I've said before, a lot of countries smaller than Iraq have had "Civil Wars". What about the Israeli wars of the 60s and 70s? They were shorter, cheaper, and took up FAR less space but they were called wars.

Perhaps but I am just saying most people would see it as that.

I never said it wasn't cause I do agree with you.

[Gio Takahashi]

We probably won't ever have a war like WW2 again with such a high death toll.although slim chance, it might happen, or it might not happen.

[tjkitsune]

Although, we might get dangerously close if someone pulls an irrational decision.. This was in today's headlines. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25580681

Seems Iran's gotten alot of attention with the fact they're playing with atoms and "building a nuclear power plant." Some are nervous that this will give Iran an atomic bomb.. Though they're not threatening to attack the US Homeland or any other cities, just shipping supplies, which would hinder our oil supply and any imports we bring in.. Which would lead to more high prices in gas, food, and other things.. Wouldn't be fun at all, but nothing that would really kill us, per say.

[deathofcheese]

Development of nuclear power-generating means /=/ development of nuclear weapons. Having said that, also know that it wouldn't take much to convert it to weapons development.

Although what was reported in the msnbc story seemed a very heavy-handed decision (nukes in response to one bullet? genocidal much?), to me it's just a threat of retaliation, not a guarantee of war. I understand that Iran would be very dangerous if it ever got nukes and felt like making its point very clear, but statements like these tell me that they're just trying to establish what will and won't piss them off. However, if they were ordered to abandon their nuclear program but refused and started blatantly ignoring the UN (like Iraq did which led to both the Gulf War and the recent war in Iraq) then I would feel that someone would have to move into Iran to take action and be prepared for the resulting nuclear-enabled war.

[EndlessSky]

It honestly sounds pretty fishy to me.

I mean Irans president said Israel shouldn't exist and with their zealous religious beliefs and all the mindless fighting that has been going on in that part of the world. Iran suddenly starts to develop nuclear technology and keeps trying to assure other nations that it is not for weapons. That makes it seem like something is up.

I WANT to beleive them but I dunno, there are too many things that say we shouldn't let our guard down.

[Gio Takahashi]

It does seem to be fishy, but it's something that we can only wait and see.

[Seegtease]

The thing about nukes is that if they cause a high death toll, it's mostly innocent civilians, not troops.

[EndlessSky]

Did you guys hear how Iran just test fired several missiles in the Persian gulf and they said if they are attacked they will retaliate.

So, yea I think its becoming more apparent and some people say Iran isn't a threat to anyone...

[Killer_Man_]

Source?

[Arainach]

First of all, even if they had cruise missiles they don't have ICBMs, so they're not a threat to us, and if they attack Israel so fucking what. At least if they got rid of them the Arab states would lose their #1 and #2 reasons for hating America.

[Gio Takahashi]

Yes, someone posted an article about that earlier in this thread. Iran said that they would attack US's interests if a US soldier fired a shot in Iran, it's in that said article.

And Arainach, I'm pretty sure that there would be quite a consequence if they were to suddenly attack Israel.

[Killer_Man_]

Are we even still stationed in Israel or are we just still suppling them?

[Arainach]

You seriously think they'd let our forces into their country?

No, we just give them billions and billions of dollars in exchange for the hatred of the rest of the world. It's a pretty one-sided relationship.

[EndlessSky]

Well Arainach, once they finish with Israel they will go after the United States.

Also for my source, CNN, yahoo news, Fox news, etc. It's all over the news man that Iran test fired those missiles.

"AP - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack,"

[Killer_Man_]

Yeah but I could have swore we were in Israel at some point... I'll have to do my research.

[Arainach]

Well Arainach, once they finish with Israel they will go after the United States.

Also for my source, CNN, yahoo news, Fox news, etc. It's all over the news man that Iran test fired those missiles.

"AP - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack,"Interesting that they don't define 'long-range'. I maintain a strong doubt that they have anything that could reach the US. It's a LOT harder to build an ICBM than it is to build a nuke.

[Seegtease]

Well Arainach, once they finish with Israel they will go after the United States.

They can and die.

Honestly, if any country attacked American soil, we'd have enough people enlisting to obliterate them.

[Arainach]

As Zeitgeist suggested, every other nation knows better than to try and attack US soil. Plus, I'd like to know your justification for that claim. Remember: 99% of the reason they "hate" us (if they even do - Iran's considerably more moderate in that regard than just about every other arab state) is our support for Israel.

[Killer_Man_]

Cuz us heathenz are on holy sooooil.

(Sorry couldn't resist)

[Bloodcinder]

Well Arainach, once they finish with Israel they will go after the United States.

Also for my source, CNN, yahoo news, Fox news, etc. It's all over the news man that Iran test fired those missiles.

"AP - Iran test-fired nine long- and medium-range missiles Wednesday during war games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any U.S. or Israeli attack,"
On a similar note: fail (http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/07/iranian-govt-persian-pixels-pwned.html).

[RonDo]

On a similar note: fail (http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/07/iranian-govt-persian-pixels-pwned.html).

An additional note on this: Here (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/in-an-iranian-image-a-missile-too-many/index.html?hp)

This:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/10/world/ledemissiles1.jpg

versus this:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/07/10/world/ledemissiles2.jpg

[deathofcheese]

Still, three out of four isn't bad. Close only counts in horseshoes and thermonuclear war.

[Bloodcinder]

The important thing is that we get to laugh at Iran, Sechoes.

[Arainach]

Still, three out of four isn't bad. Close only counts in horseshoes and thermonuclear war.As another aside, 'thermonuclear' refers to fusion weapons, something which no one has suggested Iran is anywhere near close to.

[deathofcheese]

Yes, laugh at their failure to use photoshop properly while those other three missiles get used for something sinister instead of blowing up harmlessly over an unpopulated area or the ocean.

YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM BEING SOBERING, TRY THOUGH YOU MIGHT.

Yes, I do get it. They suck and actually don't have a bigger or similar-sized penis than we do. Even though it's doctored, it still shows three successful missile tests. Which don't appear to be doctored, unless the whole image is a careful ploy to fool us into thinking that we're so smart because we ousted them as covering up only three out of four successful tests when in fact none worked and they're just bluffing.

[Arainach]

And, once again, I express doubt that any of those 3 missiles could get within a thousand miles of the US mainland.

[deathofcheese]

Definitely not, they're not ICBMs. They'd have to get somewhere close, but even still, they'd have to avoid not getting shot down.

I'm my own worst enemy in arguments. I hear the opposing argument in my head and incorporate it into what I say, lol. :P

[Gio Takahashi]

And, once again, I express doubt that any of those 3 missiles could get within a thousand miles of the US mainland.

I'm sure even they know that, which is why they said they'd attack US's interests, including ports, and such.

I really doubt that would happen though.

[Bloodcinder]

Yes, I do get it. They suck and actually don't have a bigger or similar-sized penis than we do.

Exactly. I'm going to keep laughing at Iran because they have such a tiny penis. And that's a real insult to them coming from me.

[Detrevni]

Iran's missiles are not a threat to the mainland but they could be used against carrier groups, israel, US military bases anywhere.

Do you know how hard it is to shoot down a missile? pretty tough actually. Sure we have all sorts of anti-missile tech including lasers, but it's a still a bullet on bullet problem that our technology still hasn't quite caught up to yet.

Also ICBMs are significantly less difficult to build than nuclear weapons themselves.

So.. who's glad Boeing's ready to build the ABL (Airborne Laser)? :D

Personally if Israel and Iran blow themsleves all to hell, I doubt the rest of the world is going to go nuclear over it. Sure it will suck, many people will die, but perhaps it will teach the rest of the nuke capable countries just WHY USING THEM IS SUCH A TERRIBLE IDEA.

[Arainach]

Detrevni: A nuclear weapon is shockingly simple. Refine some U-235/Pu-239. Get a couple of large hunks, slap them together to make a critical mass, boom. The only tough parts are building reliable detonators. They were a challenge to discover the first time, but now the basic concepts are in any sixth-grade science textbook.

In contrast, rocketry is a very difficult and advanced science. We developed Fission weapons in 3 years - 1941-1944. We developed fusion weapons by 1952. Neither the US nor the Soviets were able to develop an ICBM until 1957. Even today, most of the engineering details are tightly-kept secrets. It also requires many more specialized and precision parts, manufacturing chains, resources, etc. Nuclear weapons are shockingly basic in contrast.

[RonDo]

And, once again, I express doubt that any of those 3 missiles could get within a thousand miles of the US mainland.

I think as long as they can reach Israel, they'll be fine with that. A US embassy or some off shore carriers would be just icing.

[EndlessSky]

Yea, well.... you don't need a ICBM to set off a nuclear weapon... its only a method of delivery.

Also, just saying it's not a threat just because they don't "seem" to have ICBMs isn't a good idea in my opinion and doesn't mean nobody should keep an aim on them.

[Arainach]

We're ahead of ourselves anyhow because there's no evidence they have a nuclear weapons program. They've been fully compliant with UN investigations - investigations whose conclusions run completely contrary to the propaganda fed to us by our government. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091302052.html)

[EndlessSky]

That doesn't mean its not possible they have one.

So you don't find it odd, that as soon as they start developing this stuff and start questioning it, they keep trying to ensure us its not for weapons and then they launch missles to show they have the power to retaliate?

If they weren't developing nuclear technology for weapons, why do this in the first place?

And just because they have been compliant with investgations doesn't mean they are not doing it either and as soon as you let your guard down on these things is when it's too late. I'm not saying to use force or anything on them, I'm just countries shouldn't let their guard down.

[Arainach]

If the US was constantly talking about invading you, wouldn't you want to do a display of force to show you're not going down without a fight?

And nuclear power works rather well for electricity, not just weapons. Very clean, very cheap. Unlike America, Iran's able to look to the future and see that things have to change and that they can't live off oil forever.

[EndlessSky]

Hahaha, alright I'm not gonna comment in this thread any further.

[Seegtease]

And nuclear power works rather well for electricity, not just weapons. Very clean, very cheap. Unlike America, Iran's able to look to the future and see that things have to change and that they can't live off oil forever.

No matter how good it is (and I love the idea of more nuclear power), you can't exactly put a nuclear reactor in a car.

[deathofcheese]

Sure you can. It'd probably be more like a nuclear battery, but it would still be similar to a miniature reactor. There are already mini-nuclear power stations (read: big honkin' batteries) that can be installed for, say, apartment complexes, that provide electricity, heat water, and can cool the entire building. I know it sounds pretty fantastical, but it exists.

[Seegtease]

That's still too big. After a certain point, shrinking becomes unreasonable. And doesn't a nuclear reactor require a certain degree of manual maintenance to prevent a kaboom, even on a small scale?

[Arainach]

No matter how good it is (and I love the idea of more nuclear power), you can't exactly put a nuclear reactor in a car.Having small car-level power generation is inefficient anyhow; the ideal solution is central generation of electricity by whatever means (coal, nuclear, hydro, something we haven't thought up yet, whatever) and electric cars powered by rechargable batteries. We just need an advance in battery technology to make it feasible.

[deathofcheese]

I found it.

Toshiba Builds Ultra-Small Nuclear Reactor (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/20/0429200)[From Slashdot:]
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html) that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.[From linked article:]
Toshiba has developed a new class of micro size Nuclear Reactors that is designed to power individual apartment buildings or city blocks. The new reactor, which is only 20 feet by 6 feet, could change everything for small remote communities, small businesses or even a group of neighbors who are fed up with the power companies and want more control over their energy needs.

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

Toshiba expects to install the first reactor in Japan in 2008 and to begin marketing the new system in Europe and America in 2009.While this still isn't car-sized, it's just proof that we can now build miniature automated nuclear reactors.

[Arainach]

But you're totally ignoring Zeit's point that you can't shrink them into car-sized things. Doesn't work that way. Look into the physics behind nuclear reactors, especially the concept of critical mass.

[deathofcheese]

While this still isn't car-sized, it's just proof that we can now build miniature automated nuclear reactors.I was partly trying to correct myself from my previous statement (comparing the mini-reactor to a "big honkin' battery") and partly trying to suggest that if reactors can be built that small, so could nuclear batteries. According to wikipedia, although the most efficient nuclear batteries only approach about 20%, while hydrogen cell efficiency approaches about 50%, the half-life of the batteries can be up to 20+ years.

Additionally, taking your comment about battery upgrades, these local reactors could provide fuel or a recharge of nuclear batteries to keep the oomf up as the isotope begins to decay.

I see what you mean though. Obviously we can't do it now (and we're reasonably sure we can't ever), but maybe someone will make a discovery some day about how to drastically reduce the critical mass or temperature needed for fission (or how to better control/contain the fission reaction) that could lead to miniaturization on a car-size level. Maybe that'll be related to a breakthrough that brings us reliable and accessible cold fusion or even regular fusion.

Oh, and, for Gio, WAR AM BAD.

[Arainach]

Even if they could, Uranium is not petroleum. It's not only finite, it's relatively scarce. There aren't many known deposits of it in the world, and there's certainly not enough to power the entire world with it, much less put it in every car.