Do you really wan t this man in charge of the button

ninky_2

Pete111 wrote: »

All very true.

However, you cannot deny it's a very, very good deterrant. I know as a game, lets all count the times an overtly nuclear armed state has been invaded by another state.

Finished counting yet peeps?

let's count the number of times a country with nuclear weapons would have faced invasion if they didn't have them.

i think i'd rather be invaded than have a load of nuclear bombs dropped on me.

Pete111

GDB2222 wrote: »

Israel was only one on my list, and everyone knows they have nuclear bombs - either that or it's the biggest bluff ever.

This country was invaded by Argentina, yet we didn't nuke BA (I'm pleased to say).

Yes everyone knows now . Did the Arab states really know in 73? If they did then they would have also known that they had little capabilty for wideranging warhead delivery at that point - ie at least their cities would have been safe.

The Falklands are not strictly 'The UK', they are a self governed overseas territory that chooses to be be under crown rule.

Given that Maggie wouldn't even admit we were 'at war' (we were 'at conflict') with Argentina, I think thats a technical argument at best!!

(I am also pleased that that was decidedly non nuclear BTW!!)

Pete111

ninky wrote: »

let's count the number of times a country with nuclear weapons would have faced invasion if they didn't have them.

i think i'd rather be invaded than have a load of nuclear bombs dropped on me.

You can't know that ...that's kind of the point!

I would rather we weren't invaded or bombed. Doesn't mean I think we should unilaterally disarm and hug everyone.

Harry_Powell

ninky wrote: »

yes it does! at least get your facts right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium

Enriched uranium is a critical component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency attempts to monitor and control enriched uranium supplies and processes in its efforts to ensure nuclear power generation safety and curb nuclear weapons proliferation.

lol, well I clearly don't have access to the sort of high level research as you do with wikipedia, but here's what I know...

Iran was originally enriching uranium to 3.5% to generate power. They then argued that they wanted to enrich to 20% to produce medical isotopes. To produce a nuclear weapon you have to enrich above 90%.

So if they enrich beyond 20%, what do you think they are doing it for?

p.s. Did I get my facts right?

Entertainer

Harry_Powell wrote: »

lol, well I clearly don't have access to the sort of high level research as you do with wikipedia, but here's what I know...

Iran was originally enriching uranium to 3.5% to generate power. They then argued that they wanted to enrich to 20% to produce medical isotopes. To produce a nuclear weapon you have to enrich above 90%.

So if they enrich beyond 20%, what do you think they are doing it for?

p.s. Did I get my facts right?

They've also been offered a near limitless supply of low enriched uranium by Russia for their energy needs but, strangely, aren't interested. Goodness knows what game they're playing.