Yes :-j
No
Good. Me too.

The thing your not seeing is just because something is old it dosn't mean you throw it away.


Your forgeting 'The French and Indian war". :know:

Your not getting all 'Denzel Washington' on me are you. :rotfl:

All I wanna say is that conventional weapons are not OK .. no weapon is. I would not care if I'll be killed by 'the bomb' or a 7mm bullet.

I just see you revendicate the nuclear dissuasion at this time.
Bad way to start to think how to bannish this kind of weapon from inventory, after the battlefield ...
The real ennemy I was talking about was ... you

that's for sure
but a 7mm bullet won't kill 2 million people in a row

To steal a line from Col. Jack O’Neal; [The bomb] is a weapon of terror: it's made to intimidate the enemy. [A gun] is a weapon of war: it's made to kill the enemy.

I don't want to banish nuclear "weapons". Nuclear explosives are just a tool like any other. You can use them to protect your self, you can use them for the common good, or you can use them to massacre entire groups of people.

And, of course, you feel the only one legitimate to use them
And Iranian people ?

As long as some could think they could legitimately have the power over others, others will legitimatly try to take this power themself.
If it is illegitimate to have this power, nobody have, and nobody can have it legitimately.
and the climb is over

If the Iranians were to use them to dig mines to propel spacecraft good for them but that’s NOT what they intend to use them for. They intend for them to kill Americans. If anyone builds Nuclear weapons with the intention of using them to kill Americans I say we better have some to kill them right back. If someone wants to build them to better humanity, I hope we help.

here is the deal :
no one have the right to do that

If US or any other country have this right, everyone have the right.
Imagine you are an iranian, what could you think of what you, as american, just said ?
"He think he have the right but I have the right also".

And I agree with him, even if I don't like consequences

The fact to kill the right to anyone solve the problem
After it's just a question of police
and technology can make it.

A 7mm bullet traveling at a significant fraction of .c impacting a major city could kill lots of people. Not millions but a lot. :hmm: Its how you use it that matters.

Yes we built nuclear weapons with the intention of killing people but we kept building them to protect our selves. The leaders of nations like North Korea and Iran do want to go around killing people either by direct action or be the result of action (or inaction) and should be denied all weapons.

We have the right to build them to protect our selves or better our selves. Others do have that right if they remain transparent about their use.

so, one day, it won't be 2 tower but entire new york eradiqued by a portable nuke because your phylosophy allowed them to improve their capabilities in this domain instead of stopping it.

If NATO say NO to nuke, money spent in this business could be re oriented for surpervision of the respect of this decision.
I'm sure LOTS money will be saved, and the world will be saved also.

If any country have the right to develop nuclear weapon, it will be a probelm very soon.
It's easy to understand.

Or the outer solar system is colonized thanks to space craft propelled by Orion Drives. As I said if they remain transparent about nuclear development and use I don't have a problem with other nations doing it, since we know what they are doing and can say stop and make them if they create them with the intent to kill.

The world might be "Saved" but humanity would be doomed. The power of an atomic explosion is a power to be harnessed like the wind or sunlight. It can be used for good or evil.

I didn't say any country has a right to. I said only the ones who develop them for peaceful use and remain transparent about their development should have them. Currently only the US, UK, France and Russia are the only ones who come close to this standard.

Err, um, coughs politely - but even SSBNs are very quiet

It pains the Rosbifs greatly to see both those they 'love to hate' and
those they 'hate to love' at each others throats.

Can you end the duel ? - honour is satisfied.................................you both winged each other ! :cool: :up: :rock:

C'est fini - the shows over bud. (Hows that !!) ;) :lol:

right the SSBN is quieter because its role is to remain undetected unlike the SSN it doesnt use speed as its main feature where the SSN will go at 30 knots to cover say 100 miles the SSBN will quite happily stay at 5 knots

SSBN's avoid the limelight they avoid everything and everyone including thier own ships and submarines no one bar a hand ful of people on board knows where the submarine is and that does include the president

the role of the SSBN is to remain undetected and hidden so poodleing along at 6 knots its more than acceptable because it makes less noise than an SSN

the SSN's role is to attack the SSBN's role is to defend

the SSBN will avoid contact with everything and will not fire unless fired apon as it trys to remain stealthy

SSBN is designed to dissapear the SSN is also designed to do this but its also designed to pop up and give the enamy a shock something the SSBN isnt designed to do

SSBN's use they key items that is quietness silence and the uniqueness of the crew to thier main advantages

SSN's use speed agression and weapons as thier main advantages can you see the diffrence ?

END