Ikonboard » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: The Classroom
Topic: campus nonsense
started by: CatKnight

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 21 2002,06:15

read this, then tell me what you think.

< http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive....-01.asp >

I submitted a reply to the newspaper, I'll post it after a few of you tell me your opinions.

Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 21 2002,06:23

I agree with the statement that we shouldn’t be developing new nuclear weapons, but this guy is using bad analogies, why use analogies with such a major issue just present the facts and move on.

Posted by Vigilante on Mar. 21 2002,16:57

Bad analogies, not to mention improper terminology. I doubt these bunker busters have much in common with what is normally considered a 'strategic nuke' (city killer). I'd guess what we're developing micronukes, well under 1kt yield (remember kiddies, that's a thousand tons worth of tnt; we don't have to flatten entire mountains to collapse a bunker), with a penetrating delivery system like the daisy cutter.

Fallout from these things is negligable... aside from the possibility of giant radioactive mutant scorpions, I don't much care that a useless patch of desert might be as deadly as a cell phone.

Irrational fears fed by willful ignorance give rise to twits like this. Regardless of Bush's "cowboy image" (frankly, I wish he'd start wearing a white hat and a six-shooter on his hip), we have proven that we are responsible bearers of nuclear power over the last 35 years or so (things were iffy before that). The misconception that needs to be overcome is that any use = misuse. We're not going to completely annihilate Baghdad, even if a terrorist nuke were detonated on US soil and Saddam danced a jig in public. We'd roll a tank division over his grunts, flatten his palaces with conventional bombs, then nuke his underground bunkers - and there will be much rejoicing.

Posted by Wiley on Mar. 21 2002,17:14

Quote

Nuclear weapons do not make themselves. Humans make them. But humans have not made any nuclear weapons in the United States since 1992, when our first president named Bush put a halt on all research and development of nuclear arms.

We're not stupid ...are we? Does anybody think that the US military is not still researching nuclear weapons? I'm all for the US government spending whatever money on whatever weapons technology they want to as long as it ensures other nations live in fear of the USA. And it's not like any of this is really George W.'s ideas ...this is the stuff that the Republican military couldn't push through under the former Democratic presidency. This is kind of a weak spot in our government system. The president can control the military since he is the highest-ranking officer (I don’t know why this was ever a good idea …but whatever) and the military has to go to the Senate or Supreme Court to overturn him. Well, you typically don't want to go to the Senate or the Supreme Court with all your secret plans because then the shit becomes public record. The army is really the president’s bitch. Thank god we now have a president with no spine that can be exploited by republicans for our own good.

Posted by Nikita on Mar. 21 2002,17:59

I dunno, but I get the weird feeling that Georgie boy is rapidly undoing in a few months what Clinton established and built up in 8 years ... kinda like a rabid kitten on speed set loose in a sweater factory.

Thinking back, Bush kinda looks like that Domino's (?) pizza monkey ... bad andy, good pizza ...

Hey looky, 666 posts for the evil that is me

Oomph!

Posted by Vigilante on Mar. 21 2002,18:14

Quote

I dunno, but I get the weird feeling that Georgie boy is rapidly undoing in a few months what Clinton established and built up in 8 years ...

??

You say that like it's a bad thing.

(btw, the Noid will always own Andy

)

Posted by kuru on Mar. 21 2002,18:33

OH MY GOD

You mean W actually has plans in effect and the capability to carry them out to make sure that if anyone does decide to start an actual war with the US we won't be caught with our pants down and a copy of The Little Mermaid in the VCR?

What the hell is wrong with him to not completely decimate our military, close down our bases, and then sing Kumbayah with the communist Chinese at a political fundraiser?

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 21 2002,20:50

to you three who voted that this guy was right on,

Quote

if there is even the slightest perception that the United States might "go nuclear" without any direct provocation, then rogue nations like Iraq or North Korea would have every reason to attempt a preemptive strike the United States,

you do realize he is saying that he thinks iraq should nuke us first in a pre-emptive strike. that iraq should aniihiliate new york before we annihliate their nuke stashes.

Posted by kuru on Mar. 21 2002,20:55

He's obviously a terrorist.

Paging John Ashcroft! Paging John Ashcroft!

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 21 2002,23:15

dammit, CK, stop deliberately misinterpreting people's words. he is not saying that he thinks Iraq etc. should strike first. He is saying that those nations would see it that way.

But I also think he's overreacting. There is a big difference between a 30 megaton beast and a 1KT "micronuke." Most of our Cold War-era weapons are designed to level Moscow. They have very little military use. They are hardly the surgical weapons preferred nowadays. Their most useful role is to simply exist, so that rogue nations don't get any bright ideas.

Micronukes, on the other hand, are an interesting technology...

"Dear Iraq,

We'd like to tell you about this neat new bomb we have. It's a low-yield atomic weapon, perfect for wiping out chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons facilities in one shot.

If you would like a demonstration of this exciting new technology, please continue to operate these facilities.

Sincerely,
The People of the United States of America"

Posted by editor on Mar. 22 2002,01:47

Someone told me (can't say who) that detonate.net was originally about blowing stuff up! So this thread is way topical for detnet...

Me? I think nukes and their ilk are interesting! I like to read about them, but I wonder.

So we use a micro nuke on some facility, and Iraq retaliates by shipping us a bunch of radioactive waste from their bombed reactor and they blow it up with dynamite in San Francisco Bay, and the whole area is contaminated with fallout....

But it's ok, we nuked them first.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 22 2002,03:25

Quote

dammit, CK, stop deliberately misinterpreting people's words. he is not saying that he thinks Iraq etc. should strike first. He is saying that those nations would see it that way.

that's a moot point, but otherwise i agree.

you people seem to forget the fact that if iraq/nkorea/iran had nukes, they would not hesitate to use them on us or israel immidiately. it's not the same as the cold war. in the cold war, we and the russkies made lots of nukes to deter each other from using them. here, we are not making nukes to deter iraq any more then they are making nukes to deter us. they are trying to make nukes to use them the first chance they get.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 22 2002,10:01

Quote (CatKnight @ 21 Mar. 2002,19:25)

that's a moot point, but otherwise i agree.

it's not a moot point. if you are going to summarize someone else's argument, it's good practice to present a fair summary of it. demolishing a straw man only impresses the stupid.

Quote

here, we are not making nukes to deter iraq any more then they are making nukes to deter us. they are trying to make nukes to use them the first chance they get

I don't think we're making them to use the first chance we get. We're making 'em in case we need 'em. And it does make a fairly effective deterrent. Hell, all you have to do is drop leaflets around threatening to light one off, and you'll see a lot of soldiers waving white flags in the air. They don't want to be turned into plasma any more than you do.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 22 2002,14:15

Quote

demolishing a straw man only impresses the stupid.

mission acomplished.

Quote

I don't think we're making them to use the first chance we get. We're making 'em in case we need 'em.

i was referring to iraq not the u.s.

Posted by Uberkommando on Mar. 24 2002,01:34

I think I see the formula Bush is using here...

Nullifying ABM treaty + Building NMD + Producing more nukes = Severely pissed off Russia and China = Hiding in my basement for the next twelve years

Iraq is the least of our problems here; it'd take less than a year to get Saddam thrown out and someone a little friendlier put in his place.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 25 2002,14:56

< http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive....-02.asp >

Posted by chmod on Mar. 25 2002,20:27

That was an effective retort, in my opinion. Well done.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 25 2002,22:15

<bow>

Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 25 2002,22:22

Yeah that dude didn't know what he was talking about really, at least in a real world situation.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 26 2002,02:00

what other situation is there?

Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 26 2002,03:08

hypothetical idealism.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 26 2002,06:28

OMG THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!

< http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive....-03.asp >

Quote

Mr. Livingston goes on to say we need low-grade nukes to protect us and Israel against these rogue nations, since they are "bent on the total destruction of Israel and the West."

How do we know they are bent on our destruction?

HELLO? Have you been in a freaking coma for the last 7 months??

here is a pic of the reaction on my face when i read that. my room mate took it by surprise.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 26 2002,07:07

Let it be known that when I say I am a "liberal," I do not mean to imply any association with that man, his ideas, or the general air of stupidity around him.

Actually, fuck it. I'm not a liberal any more. I'm a Californian.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 26 2002,07:56

Quote (damien_s_lucifer @ 25 Mar. 2002,18:07)

Actually, fuck it. I'm not a liberal any more. I'm a Californian.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 26 2002,08:37

Don't get too excited. I haven't joined the dark side or anything. If that is the sort of thinking that the East Coast liberal establishment spits out, I want to make it publicly known that I am NOT that kind of liberal.

I suddenly understand why so many people are proud to be "conservative"... around here, a "conservative" is either a. a fundamentalist Christian hell-bent on making us all Christians, or 2. someone who hates queers, beats his wife, owns two dozen guns, and makes speed in his bathtub.

We call guys like the dude who replied to you "idiots."

Posted by kuru on Mar. 26 2002,13:44

People like me hate conservatives like the ones that fit your a) and b) just as much as we despise liberal idiots like the ones who wrote the previous two links in the Daily Collegian.

Because they are fucking idiot morons who shouldn't breed - and because they will breed.

Posted by Nikita on Mar. 26 2002,17:05

make glass, make glass, make glass!

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 27 2002,06:13

Before every election, a bunch of wannabe hippies arrive from somewhere on the East Coast to help support some voter initiative that's on the ballot. They get into town screaming everything they can about how stupid and inferior the American voting public is... the native hippies party with them, sell them some shitty brown Mexican weed as "Humboldt Gold" at an 800% markup, and then leave to go party somewhere else.

Endless partying, the love of a good deal, and tolerance for everything but intolerance - that is the way of the California Liberal.

Posted by veistran on Mar. 27 2002,08:42

are you sure that guy isn't European?

Posted by editor on Mar. 27 2002,09:08

A google search of "california liberal conservative"
got

this.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 27 2002,16:44

california conservative == rino

Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 27 2002,18:55

"Go back to the ship and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." -Ripley

These mini nukes would be great for busting deep bunkers. if you get them to penatrate deep enough you will get no fallout at all. Granted, thats a big if.

I think Bush is getting out of the ABM thing cause we have this big bullseye painted on us and he does not want some sand based fucknugget taking pot shots at us from the other side of the planet.

Me, i say nuke'em till they glow, shoot them in the dark and let the computer sort them out.

Then wait for a mutation.

Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 27 2002,23:37

as far as I can tell, most CA conservative organizations are of the right-wing Christian variety. so you can see why lots of people around here hate "conservatives." The Republican party doesn't have many fans around here, because they are too mixed up with the politics of the religious right. A strong belief in individualism runs very deep out West... I guess that's why all the talk of "liberals want the government to control everything" confuses me. The Democrats are the majority party, but like most people around here they don't like Federal control. Our State government has repeatedly shown itself to be much more capable of handling most government affairs than the Feds.

Here's a real good reason we despise the Federal government : state law says that you have the right to grow and possess marijuana for personal use. This law passed with better than a 2/3rds majority. Local sheriffs and DAs know who the growers are and where the farms are located. They know who runs the clubs. They provide guidelines as to how the clubs should operate - the records that need to be kept, etc.

But every once in awhile, the DEA comes along, raids the clubs, seizes everything, and threatens to charge everyone in federal court. This pisses EVERYONE off. All the DEA does is cut off the supply of marijuana to sick people for awhile... and yes, these people ARE really sick, and marijuana DOES help them immeasurably. For many of them, a joint a day replaces half a dozen or more pills, and allows them to have some semblance of a life.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 28 2002,01:55

Quote

... I guess that's why all the talk of "liberals want the government to control everything" confuses me. The Democrats are the majority party, but like most people around here they don't like Federal control.

liberals, in their iron curtain of moral superiority, think they know what is best for everyone else. they want to impose their laws on everyone, except themselves (e.g. greenpeace leaders drive SUV's, proponents of public education sending their kids to private schools, etc)

Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 28 2002,02:19

Great job at generalizing all liberals. And besides, just because someone is a proponent of public schools doesn't mean their kids should go to one. A huge number of public schools are horribley shitty (massively obvious, esp. since I've moved to FL, and if you don't think so you're full of shit). Why should someone's kid be forced to go to school A if it's not as good as school B. What they -need- to do is take money out of fucking defense (I don't give a shit, before you even start, it gets too much god damned money) and put it in the schools so such a large portion of them aren't total crap. Then the debate wouldn't even exist.

Posted by chmod on Mar. 28 2002,03:28

Quote (TheTaxMan @ 27 Mar. 2002,18:19)

Just throwing money at the education problem doesn't make it go away... The Clinton administration proved that nicely. Teacher accountability and school vouchers would help increase the standards for education, create healthy competition and probably result in getting these public school districts to get their act together.

Posted by veistran on Mar. 28 2002,05:20

Quote (TheTaxMan @ 27 Mar. 2002,20:19)

Public Schools have the same problem as any other public sector job, the smart people work in the private sector and the stupid people get the public sector jobs.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 28 2002,05:31

Quote

. And besides, just because someone is a proponent of public schools doesn't mean their kids should go to one.

what kind of hypocritical nonsense is that?

Posted by editor on Mar. 28 2002,05:33

ed
/impressed.

Um, CK?
the floor

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 28 2002,06:32

the floor is shiney

Posted by TheTaxMan on Mar. 28 2002,21:35

Quote (CatKnight @ 27 Mar. 2002,21:31)

Quote

. And besides, just because someone is a proponent of public schools doesn't mean their kids should go to one.

what kind of hypocritical nonsense is that?

It means that you realize there is a problem and don't want your kid to have to deal with it.

Posted by CatKnight on Mar. 28 2002,22:17

if you realize that public schools suck then you shouldnt be arguing that everyone should go to them.