General discussions : Non mobile discussion : Nuclear, climate perils push Doomsday Clock ahead
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> Nuclear, climate perils push Doomsday Clock ahead
Bookmark topic
@lastic - Looking back at the TOPIC of your thread . . . I know that you just want to share the LATEST news that was reported about this DOOMSDAY CLOCK . . . as I personally saw it being discussed (as a news) at CNN . . .
Carry on with the discussion . . . it's HEALTHY
--
Posted: 2007-01-22 01:02:42
Edit :
Quote
@Jojo, i know, i just don't want to fight people about politics. I had enough of it on imdb forums, and as i'm Turkish, people just assume we are a crappy banana republic with anti-american preconceptions.
Indeed, this can be a thread by itself - What do you think about the Turks?
Man, we are what the world loves to hate.
--
Posted: 2007-01-22 13:45:58
Edit :
Quote
We down here don't hate the Turks.
You'd be well aware of the significance Gillipoli holds for us Kiwi and the Aussies aswell. Personally I'm astounded that you allow us to intude on your country each April, especially given the loutish behaviour of some of our tourists....
Quote:
I think the doomsday clock thing is just leftist scaremongering designed to cause anxiety in the public at large. Global warming, while a real threat, is manageable and not as dire as some predict.
And we're still a long way from WW3.
Do anyone want to comment on this statement of mine?
_________________
Bush Was Right[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-01-24 01:39 ]
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 02:35:15
Edit :
Quote
@car - In my own HUMBLE opinion . . . I think the ISSUE with Global Warming is realla MAJOR threat at present . . . if we REALLY DO NOT ' act ' NOW . . . results will be in catastrophic proportions . . . UNIMAGINABLE I think . . .
About WW III, yes . . . looks like that will be way too far from now . . . let's just take the CASE of Afghanistan and Iraq . . . when they were attacked no OTHER country JOINED in to protect/help them or what
. . . I guess this will be the same scenario too if US will plan to attack: Pyongyang and Tehran !
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 02:52:24
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2007-01-20 17:34:13, lastikcizme wrote:
@carkitter
If some countries have nukes, you can not forbid others to have them too.
This is the same old crap argument which gets rolled out time and time and time again.
If you think the answer is to let every country in the world have nukes then you must be either crazy or completely ignorant of the real issues involved.
Why on earth do you think the world will be a safer place if everyone had nuclear weapons?
Is it because we'll all be too scared to use them on each other? Get real! All it takes is for one tin-pot dictator to try hold another to ransom and BANG - devastation.
Well done!
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 09:24:23
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
@car - In my own HUMBLE opinion . . . I think the ISSUE with Global Warming is realla MAJOR threat at present . . . if we REALLY DO NOT ' act ' NOW . . . results will be in catastrophic proportions . . . UNIMAGINABLE I think . . .
I'd agree with that. That's my main concern in the near future.
Melbourne has been going through a 10 year drought. Our water levels are depleting, we've got bushfires raging for around 2 months than that has caused us to import ones from the US to help, and our government is afraid to sign the Kyoto protocol due to economic reasons. Notice the contradiction in those two actions.
It's gonna cost more in the long term if we continue this way. The way we're going, we'll have destroyed the planet within 150 years.
I remember this CEO saying that our current industrial revolution is un sustainable and needs to end. Make way for another one that can sustain itself.
Fair point. Who can argue that the way we're going is sustainable?
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 12:25:20
Edit :
Quote
@carkitter, ANZACs were noble opponents (something that was very scarce then and still is), and we all have good feelings against you guys.
@goldenface: About WW3, i think it isn't as close as it used to be decades ago, but as more countries claim the technology, the possibility of someone pressing the button increases, as you have stated.
On the other hand, who's gonna decide who deserves to possess nukes or not? Definately not USA, as it is the only one who crossed that line and nuked innocent people before.
And those who have nukes would never hand them over to an international commitee or whatever, so once you have it, you keep it.
So what will a country who has "enemies who have (or may oneday have) nukes" do? It has to get one for itself.
It's inevitable. You couldn't have forbidden electricity, one would eventually invent it. Maybe sometime in the future, a maniac will be able to build an A-Bomb on his garage..?
There are a few reasons a nuclear war hasn't happened in the past:
1. The fear of retaliation
2. Nuclear fallout which makes it impossible to invade countries right after leveling cities with nukes..
3. The graphic expression of nuclear wars and post-nuclear world on B-movies (Mad Max, etc.)..??
And there is only
one single way to stray away from nukes - make nukes expensive and useless. And there probably is only one way to do that: Invent a better weapon;
1. with a more controlled destruction zone (effective on a smaller radius)
2. without the nuclear contamination
3. more economical to build (Yikes!)
So, what do you people think?
@shaliron, even US didn't sign the Kyoto protocol although they have the fair half on fossil fuel consumption.
We will have to develop technologies that will generate more energy than conventional means, without the side-effects. And we should build energy efficient machinery that operates with less power requirements.
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 15:53:16
Edit :
Quote
Quote:"On the other hand, who's gonna decide who deserves to possess nukes or not? Definitely not USA, as it is the only one who crossed that line and nuked innocent people before.
Isn't that what the UN is for?
I know everyone hates America but do you think the world will be a safer place without them?
--
Posted: 2007-01-24 15:59:48
Edit :
Quote
@Jojo
I don't believe the facts back up the hyperbole.
Check out a book called "The Sceptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
It'll put things in perspective for you. It also talks about solutions to Water Shortages which are a very real problem and will get worse but not unmanageable, much like Global Warming.
@goldenface
Hit the nail on the head... again
@lastikcizme
Many good points, I agree with the majority of your post.
My answer to nuclear non-proliferation would be international treaties and agreements, ie: We (small volitile nation) won't seek Nuclear weapons if you (large stable nation) help protect us. It's countries like Iran and North Korea which can only count among its allies those who want to buy cheap oil or sell weapons who are a worry.
And those short-sighted allies always lose out in the end. Saddam owed lots of money to France and Russia...
Where do you get hold of Nuclear Material for garage experiments?
Even in 'Back to the Future', that results in being shot by 'Libyian Terrorists'.
--
Posted: 2007-01-25 02:06:16
Edit :
Quote
Global warming caused by man is a myth, the polar ice caps melting naturaly cause more damage to the ozone than e ever could, hence why the big hole in the ozone is just south of my home. As far as another WW goes, its already here, they call it a war on terrorisim and it has no borders, no defined enemy and justifys the killing of many innocent and not so innocent people every day not to mention the loss of freedom etc.
--
Posted: 2007-01-25 03:26:56
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
