Posted by lastikcizme
Read it here
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The scientists who mind the Doomsday Clock moved it two minutes closer to midnight on Wednesday -- symbolizing the annihilation of civilization and adding the perils of global warming for the first time.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 to warn the world of the dangers of nuclear weapons, advanced the clock to five minutes until midnight. It was the first adjustment of the clock since 2002.
Congratulations all arms dealers and warmongers, what'll they do with the money they got once the world is left a waste of nuclear fire and dust.
Posted by goldenface
Well if nothing comes of the latest round of talks with N Korea then I can foresee a hefty war starting. The US has already moved its Stealth bombers into position.
Posted by leeboy13
Seriously goldenface? whered you hear that too?
i hope dooms day isnt upon us, i really wanted to go out in a better mood
Posted by goldenface
@leeboy13
and some are saying N Korea is preparing to test another nuke.
source
North Korea Condemns Deployment of U.S. Stealths
NewsMax.com Wires
Tuesday, Jan. 16, 2007
SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea on Saturday condemned the deployment of U.S. stealth fighters in South Korea as an act of aggression aimed at launching war against the communist country.
A squadron of F-117A Nighthawk warplanes and some 300 airmen from Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico arrived in South Korea earlier this week for routine training. The deployment typically lasts four months.
It is the fourth time such stealth fighters have been sent to South Korea since 2003, the U.S. military said.
The U.S. deployment of the stealth aircraft, which are designed to avoid detection by radar, is "aimed at putting its scenario for a war against (North Korea) into practice," the North's Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland said Saturday in a statement.
The United States is "driving the situation to the brink of war through their reckless arms buildup and military provocations," the committee said in the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.
North Korea commonly issues such bellicose statements, accusing the U.S. of planning to attack the communist regime. Washington denies of any intention to invade the North.
_________________
Esato - Phone of the Year 2006. Vote Here!
[ This Message was edited by: goldenface on 2007-01-18 15:21 ]
Posted by Xugaa
^ No, North Korea's nutty "God" has said that he will be testing another nuclear weapon.
Posted by fatreg
WW3 here we come!
bring it on!
fatreg
Posted by joebmc
Cant ww3 wait till at least after the summer! I'm getting married soon, and don't want to be called up for duty during my honeymoon!
Posted by shaliron
Shame really. I find it funny how governments don't do anything to reverse what we've done. Global warming is pretty serious, on top of the other things likes nuclear wars.
Ironically, it would be cheaper in the long term to reverse global warming than to hold back due to economical losses caused by cutting back on greenhouse gas production.
Posted by *Jojo*
@lastic - As I've seen the report in CNN yesterday . . . the clock was adjusted to - 5 minutes. The closest the clock was adjust was in 1953, when it was at the peak of the HEAT between US and USSR with their NUKES . . the time was set at 2 minutes to midnight.
Posted by Johnex
*goes to the nearest amunation to stock up*
Posted by Residentevil
I don't think NC is a real thread they are calling for attention. Bush refused to talk to them. They are willing.
Posted by Residentevil
THis guy has just the small man syndrom.
Posted by carkitter
I think you'll find North Korea is all talk just like Saddam.
No country has a conventional army which can take on the might of the US. China knows this that's why they've been stealing US military secrets for years.
The only military tactic that can work effectively against the US is Guerilla Terrorism because it is low-tech, uses suicide tactics and break all the rules of war such as basic ones like wearing uniforms.
The Down Side of geurilla warfare is that you can only do it well on your own territory, ie: you have to be occupied by the US. North Korea won't be able to cope with that. Kim Jong Il (whatever his name is) will end up like Saddam if that happens.
Posted by *Jojo*
@car - Yeah I agree mate
Kim Jong Ill is just BUYING time here . . . just like what Saddam did before IRAQ was invaded . . . I am very certain that the Axis-Of-Evil countries will be INVADED by the US . . . sooner or later. Pyangyang and Tehran will be . . . . next !
Posted by carkitter
No, contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't start wars for fun... It only acts when a line has been crossed, and as in Iraq 2003, 1991, Vietnam, Korea in the 50's, WW2, etc, it was in coalition with other counties.
What happens will depend on North Korea and Iran respectively.
But it's obvious the US is getting ready. After 9/11, they'd be silly not to be prepared.
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.
Posted by lastikcizme
@carkitter, there's only one single country in the history of mankind to ever have launched a nuclear attack against another, killing thousands of innocent people, including children. Everyone knows which country that is.
This same country also attacks middle eastern areas, basically places where oil reserves are, for reasons like "bringing freedom and democracy", or weapons of mass destruction even though it is known doesn't exist.
If some countries have nukes, you can not forbid others to have them too.
On the other hand, there's always a possibility that some nut comes up with a cold-war leftover bomb, and starts it all over again, somewhat like it was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[ This Message was edited by: lastikcizme on 2007-01-20 16:35 ]
Posted by carkitter
| Quote: |
|
So what does that have to do with the Doomsday Clock? There a plenty of other threads for anti-American sentiment.
| Quote: |
|
I haven't forbidden anything. I think you'll find that's the job of the UN.
Personally, I would't want to see nukes in the hands of a Middle Eastern country whose leader has stated he wants to destroy Israel.
You may disagree... but as you don't like seeing thousands of innocents killed by nuclear weapons, I don't see how you can argue otherwise.
| Quote: |
|
I seriously doubt it. It would have happened by now.
Posted by Residentevil
You forget that China has the largest land army on the planet and NK the second largest. There are 10 Charlies for every US guy.
Posted by *Jojo*
@residing - Yeah . . . and 50,000 - 100,000 of those Chinese warriors can be accomodated by 1 nuke BOMB of the - USA
!
Posted by lastikcizme
carkitter, my post isn't anti-American. i posted in reply to your message claiming that US doesn't start wars for fun, and i posted nothing but the truth, to the best of my knowledge.
Well, not for fun, but you'll agree that US chases its own agenda attacking countries and keeping prisoners and such, and doesn't need to validate its reasons - fine for me, you're the superpower, of course you'll act upon your interests. But please don't tell me that US acts when a line is crossed, as they carelessly cross lines everywhere on the world.
Don't worry about Israel, they have nukes themselves, and are capable of defending themselves, as seen during the war in 50's or something.
There are ways middle eastern countries can cease to be a threat, but attacking everywhere stirring up conflicts between nations, causing the loss of thousands in collateral damage, threatening other parts of the world as they themselves cause many sufferings are not the right way to accomplish things.
Please remember that sympathy against America has decreased dramatically since the war in Iraq. They executed Saddam for killing a hundred people, and caused more deaths in the aftermath. Somethings wrong here.
If US meant to deliver democracy to Iraq, they failed miserably. It is so much worse than it used to be, but now US has regions with oil on Northern Iraq under control of its allies, Kurdish terrorist groups. Generally, you can't really do good doing bad. You try to bring freedom and democracy, but ended up claiming the oil rigs? Why are people so mad at US?
I'm sorry if i have offended anyone here on this post, and i think i'm not going to continue the discussion any longer, if i could have made my point clear with this post. Thanks for your time..
Posted by *Jojo*
@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 by lastikcizme
@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 by carkitter
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: |
|
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 by *Jojo*
@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 by goldenface
| Quote: |
|
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 by shaliron
| Quote: |
|
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 by lastikcizme
@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 by goldenface
| 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 by carkitter
@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 by Evilchap
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 by carkitter
Found this on http://www.tammybruce.com
I think it's relevant to our discussion.
Newt Gingrich bluntly described Iran's threat to the West in general and America and Israel in particular in his speech to the Herzliya Conference held by the Institute for Policy and Strategy.
"Three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust," Gingrich declared, adding: "People are greatly underestimating how dangerous the world is becoming. I'll repeat it, three nuclear weapons are a second Holocaust. Our enemies are quite explicit in their desire to destroy us. They say it publicly. We are sleepwalking through this process as though it's only a problem of communication."
"Our enemies are fully as determined as Nazi Germany, and more determined that the Soviets. Our enemies will kill us the first chance they get. There is no rational ability to deny that fact. It's very clear that the problems are larger and more immediate than the political systems in Israel or the US are currently capable of dealing with," said Gingrich.
"We don't have right language, goals, structure, or operating speed, to defeat our enemies. My hope is that being this candid and direct, I could open a dialogue that will force people to come to grips with how serious this is, how real it is, how much we are threatened. If that fails, at least we will be intellectually prepared for the correct results once we have lost one or more cities," Gingrich added.
If history repeats — and let's pray it does not — then Gingrich would find himself in the position that Churchill got to in 1939, when his correct assessment of the Nazi threat was tragically validated, and 60 million people (!) died horribly and unnecessarily.
Funny how this should pop-up on the same day I watch the DVD "The Gathering Storm" about Churchill leading into WWII...
Posted by goldenface
@Carkitter
Very interesting but that seems like 'sooooo last century'
One of the main differences in these immediate times is that war doesn't have to be declared - the way it was in 18th, 19th and 20th century. Countries then came out forthright and 'declared' that they were in a state of war with another country. So governments and citizens were mentally and strategically prepared for the worst to happen.
Today, it seems that although we are in a high state of alert, countries and governments are sleepwalking until something dreadful happens and they all 'react', when it is too late.
Like Newt has pointed out in your post - countries are desperately trying to get the upper-hand and there is always one on the offensive. If you wiped America/NATO/UN out of the equation there would be so many wars it would be hard to keep up with who's fighting who.
Posted by Residentevil
It is a mad world out there.
Posted by Evilchap
@Goldenface, spot on, and as far ass America goes better the evil you know I say