Pres. Bush - New Nuclear Weapons


Recommended Posts

Okay, I wanted bush to win first and second term but what hes doing is just unbelievable. So we threaten to go to war with other country's who try to develop nuclear weapons. Then he goes ahead and tries asking the house if we starting making new atomic war heads? Hes a hypocrite I live in the U.S. and I'm sure hes one of the worst presidents we've had in the U.S Our Country is failing more and more. I'm moving to some other country before we become part of a war. A war inside the U.S. Thank god the house rejected him. We have thousands of nukes under Arizona and we still have nuclear silos here. One which is in the state next to me.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/568778-pres-bush-new-nuclear-weapons/
Share on other sites

And Why doesn't the UN stop the U.S?

well because we ownz??

and now to the nukes, i agree whole heartedly..those previous nukes we had were complete failures!!! i mean we never got to use them post 45, and they could only destroy a city completely at most..i mean come on that's crap...give me more powerful nukes to destroy the whole planet with!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

sarcasm aside, they are just updating the nukes that are moving out of the stockpile because they are too old with a better delivery system and better computer navigation systems. the warheads will be more powerful but not a huge jump so. the development is more in the delivery system and computer systems to make it a more accurate missle, because god knows a 20 mile wide city is a hard target to miss.

We want to stop others (Iran, North Korea etc.) from making N-bombs yet we have more nuclear bombs than any other country in the world besides Russia. We fear other might use it against us, yet we are the only country who have actually used it (against Japan). And we wonder why people don't like America. hmmmmm.

I am actually scared of the U.S. I'm in Canada, and when George Bush starts another war, it will spread to the U.S., and we'll be in an all-out world war. And I don't think I'd be fighting with the U.S. if I were going to, I'd be against them, because they're ****ing the world up too much.

We want to stop others (Iran, North Korea etc.) from making N-bombs yet we have more nuclear bombs than any other country in the world besides Russia. We fear other might use it against us, yet we are the only country who have actually used it (against Japan). And we wonder why people don't like America. hmmmmm.

I like America, I don't like your nukes though.

Your going to move before another war starts? Where have you been? Are you one of those 'Global war on terrorism is a bumper sticker crowd'?

There is a war going on right now in the United States. You don't know about it but it's there. Every terror plot thwarted in the USA is a battle won in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks against American interests have gone on for at least 2 decades with thousands of innocent American lives lost. Since we finally started fighting back, how many innocent Americans have died to terrorist attacks? We've lost good men on the battlefield to protect us and they (and President Bush's policies) have done exactly what needs to be done. Where would the terrorist be today if we replied to 9/11 by bombing another empty aspirin factory? The terrorists have suffered greatly and put on notice America will not stand idly by while they slaughter innocent people.

I know foreigners won't agree with my opinion but they don't live here. This is America protecting American's interest. I KNOW if their country suffered as ours has, they would have a different perspective. People of Spain and Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorist would understand my feelings.

On to the nukes.... You want Iran to have nukes? They sponsor terrorism across the Middle East, vowed to destroy Israel, support the overthrow of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and the destruction of personal freedom in a global effort. All this done with bloodshed as their main tool. And now you want them to have nukes?

Contrary to anti-nuke protesters and European beliefs, America does not have a nuclear arsenal just waiting for the chance to use them. It's called deterrent. Look it up. No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the Soviet Union would have been kept in check by America without nukes?

But think about my statement.... No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. That gives the attacked nation the 'right' to use their nukes even if they are attacked with conventional forces. Where do you think Iran would launch nuclear missiles if they were attacked? They can't reach America but they could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey.... The list goes on. Iran would blackmail the world (and get away with it) if anyone defies them.

This concept is NOT called deterrent. Think about it.....

The current US government has caused more instability in the world than any nation belonging to the axis of evil in the past 5 years, I wouldn't give him nukes either.

Proof that The US is less stable than Iran

Everyone here acts like we live in a free equal world...we dont and never will

The US holds the power, they get to decide, there the bully on the playground

Your going to move before another war starts? Where have you been? Are you one of those 'Global war on terrorism is a bumper sticker crowd'?

There is a war going on right now in the United States. You don't know about it but it's there. Every terror plot thwarted in the USA is a battle won in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks against American interests have gone on for at least 2 decades with thousands of innocent American lives lost. Since we finally started fighting back, how many innocent Americans have died to terrorist attacks? We've lost good men on the battlefield to protect us and they (and President Bush's policies) have done exactly what needs to be done. Where would the terrorist be today if we replied to 9/11 by bombing another empty aspirin factory? The terrorists have suffered greatly and put on notice America will not stand idly by while they slaughter innocent people.

I know foreigners won't agree with my opinion but they don't live here. This is America protecting American's interest. I KNOW if their country suffered as ours has, they would have a different perspective. People of Spain and Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorist would understand my feelings.

On to the nukes.... You want Iran to have nukes? They sponsor terrorism across the Middle East, vowed to destroy Israel, support the overthrow of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and the destruction of personal freedom in a global effort. All this done with bloodshed as their main tool. And now you want them to have nukes?

Contrary to anti-nuke protesters and European beliefs, America does not have a nuclear arsenal just waiting for the chance to use them. It's called deterrent. Look it up. No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the Soviet Union would have been kept in check by America without nukes?

But think about my statement.... No country in their right mind would attack another country possessing nuclear warheads. That gives the attacked nation the 'right' to use their nukes even if they are attacked with conventional forces. Where do you think Iran would launch nuclear missiles if they were attacked? They can't reach America but they could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey.... The list goes on. Iran would blackmail the world (and get away with it) if anyone defies them.

This concept is NOT called deterrent. Think about it.....

I kinda have to agree....

America FTW! (well....its always better than Iran FTW! :D)

There is a war going on right now in the United States. You don't know about it but it's there. Every terror plot thwarted in the USA is a battle won in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks against American interests have gone on for at least 2 decades with thousands of innocent American lives lost. Since we finally started fighting back, how many innocent Americans have died to terrorist attacks?

A lot, actually. Maybe none or few on home soil, but still many.

We've lost good men on the battlefield to protect us and they (and President Bush's policies) have done exactly what needs to be done. Where would the terrorist be today if we replied to 9/11 by bombing another empty aspirin factory? The terrorists have suffered greatly and put on notice America will not stand idly by while they slaughter innocent people.

They're still where they were, because no one's come to get them. They never were in Iraq, and that's the only place you guys seem to care about.

I know foreigners won't agree with my opinion but they don't live here. This is America protecting American's interest. I KNOW if their country suffered as ours has, they would have a different perspective. People of Spain and Britain who suffered at the hands of terrorist would understand my feelings.

American interests involve things at home. Don't like other countries? Stop going there. To start a war overseas is just beyond ludicrous.

On to the nukes.... You want Iran to have nukes? They sponsor terrorism across the Middle East, vowed to destroy Israel, support the overthrow of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia and the destruction of personal freedom in a global effort. All this done with bloodshed as their main tool. And now you want them to have nukes?

Sorry, doesn't sound much different than the US motives at this point.

A lot, actually. Maybe none or few on home soil, but still many.

They're still where they were, because no one's come to get them. They never were in Iraq, and that's the only place you guys seem to care about.

American interests involve things at home. Don't like other countries? Stop going there. To start a war overseas is just beyond ludicrous.

Sorry, doesn't sound much different than the US motives at this point.

Or their track record. Overthrew Iran, and Iraq, tried to overthrow Cuba... Bloodshed, chemical weapons and the like.

There is a war going on right now in the United States. You don't know about it but it's there. Every terror plot thwarted in the USA is a battle won in the war on terror. Terrorist attacks against American interests have gone on for at least 2 decades with thousands of innocent American lives lost. Since we finally started fighting back, how many innocent Americans have died to terrorist attacks? We've lost good men on the battlefield to protect us and they (and President Bush's policies) have done exactly what needs to be done. Where would the terrorist be today if we replied to 9/11 by bombing another empty aspirin factory? The terrorists have suffered greatly and put on notice America will not stand idly by while they slaughter innocent people.

I would think that many more American lives have actually been lost since the war on terror began, and that war will not be won, what is going on now is fueling a new generation of terrorists with even more hatred for the US of A.

I don't believe what is happening in Iraq is for the benefit or protection of the US, American lives are being lost and I don't believe their homeland is any safer for it. The terrorists may have suffered some but I believe the Americans have suffered a lot more since this started.

I agree with you on the Nuclear weapons though.

Okay, I wanted bush to win first and second term but what hes doing is just unbelievable. So we threaten to go to war with other country's who try to develop nuclear weapons. Then he goes ahead and tries asking the house if we starting making new atomic war heads? Hes a hypocrite I live in the U.S. and I'm sure hes one of the worst presidents we've had in the U.S Our Country is failing more and more. I'm moving to some other country before we become part of a war. A war inside the U.S. Thank god the house rejected him. We have thousands of nukes under Arizona and we still have nuclear silos here. One which is in the state next to me.

Are you talking about that same proposal from a long time ago which results in a net loss of warheads?

And for the rest, I'm against ANYONE getting more nukes. Some countries already have nukes, and that's already bad enough. The last thing we need to do is willingly allow more people to gain the power to annihilate the world. That "since you have them, then you can't say anything about anyone else getting them." Yeah right, since when? Believe it or not, just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean his/her idea is wrong. I forget the guy who said it, but he essentially made the argument that if one needs to be perfect in order to criticize evil, evil would no doubt consume all. If there were some way of assuring everybody else would do the same, I'd be perfectly fine with substantially reducing or entirely eliminating our nuclear stockpile.

Too many Americans don't understand much about foreign countries, which I hear all the time and is rather unfortunate. It also is unfortunate that so many on this board outside of the US don't understand us at all. I find it even more disheartening now that it appears that the Canadians posting in this thread understand America and Americans so fundamentally wrong. As usual, the world is again so busy polarizing and blaming others for their own misfortunes that sometimes, I don't see how we're ever going to see a time of global prosperity.

Edited by Starcom826
And Why doesn't the UN stop the U.S?

The US pays for the UN.

Nah you just need total annihilation of every particle within the enemys borders!

Impossible, matter can be neither created nor destroyed.

The current US government has caused more instability in the world than any nation belonging to the axis of evil in the past 5 years, I wouldn't give him nukes either.

Iran has caused more instability in the Middle East than any nation in the past 5 years, I would give them about 30-40 strategically placed nukes right now, signed, sealed, and delivered.

We want to stop others (Iran, North Korea etc.) from making N-bombs yet we have more nuclear bombs than any other country in the world besides Russia. We fear other might use it against us, yet we are the only country who have actually used it (against Japan). And we wonder why people don't like America. hmmmmm.

Using nukes the way we did in Japan actually ended up saving many lives. Regardless, I'm not sure what you're arguing here, you want everyone to have an equal stockpile of nuclear weapons, even those irrational Fred Phelps impersonators running Iran?

I am actually scared of the U.S. I'm in Canada, and when George Bush starts another war, it will spread to the U.S., and we'll be in an all-out world war. And I don't think I'd be fighting with the U.S. if I were going to, I'd be against them, because they're ****ing the world up too much.

George Bush won't start another war. The next war will be started by Iran. The target will be Israel. To be fair, George Bush may still be in office at that time, so you'll be able to blame him if you feel like it.

I would think that many more American lives have actually been lost since the war on terror began, and that war will not be won, what is going on now is fueling a new generation of terrorists with even more hatred for the US of A.

I don't believe what is happening in Iraq is for the benefit or protection of the US, American lives are being lost and I don't believe their homeland is any safer for it. The terrorists may have suffered some but I believe the Americans have suffered a lot more since this started.

I agree with you on the Nuclear weapons though.

What is going on that is *actually* fueling a new generation of suicide bombers is the indoctrination camps in the Middle East. US actions in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq (you can't train as many new martyrs if your current supply is martyring themselves) have slowed this.

What's happening in Iraq is a necessary military maneuver for the coming conflict with Iran. Whether or not you feel any safer now isn't the point. When Iran starts slinging missiles around and the US is actually in a position to stop them, you will feel safer. But you will forget about this feeling of safety after about a week of media reporting on the matter brainwashes you into believing George Bush started the conflict for the oil fields in Iran.

Whether or not the terrorists have suffered isn't the point. We've disrupted their training operations, and freed a large number of their potential victims. If we can establish firm democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan then we may have already done enough to end the threat of terrorism in this world for a long time to come.

Iran has caused more instability in the Middle East than any nation in the past 5 years, I would give them about 30-40 strategically placed nukes right now, signed, sealed, and delivered.

Naturally, I would agree with you about Iran's increasingly belligerent policies, but this statement is a bit ridiculous compared to the effects of the American-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, and let's murder innocent Iranians right now! :rolleyes:

Using nukes the way we did in Japan actually ended up saving many lives.

Disputed.

What is going on that is *actually* fueling a new generation of suicide bombers is the indoctrination camps in the Middle East. US actions in Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in Iraq (you can't train as many new martyrs if your current supply is martyring themselves) have slowed this.

As many analysts, politicians, and soldiers have said, the efforts of the US in the Middle East have only fueled the terrorist cause.

Most Muslims have little purpose to strike at the US, far away, if they are doing little to one's homeland. But, if they are actively invading your nation, then there is greater incentive to perform violent acts against American soldiers. Even worse, their aims become less immoral as they shift from a nature of religious extremism to a nationalist and guerrilla nature. Many of those dedicated to fighting Westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan are not terrorists, but those wishing to liberate their homeland.

Edited by R-Flex
Iran has caused more instability in the Middle East than any nation in the past 5 years, I would give them about 30-40 strategically placed nukes right now, signed, sealed, and delivered.

more than US? Did you already forget the mess that is yet to be cleared?

:laugh:

That's actually a refreshingly honest response Netrack.

thank you :)

Its true though, there are certain obligations that the US must ential being the most influential country but it all comes down to the US having the power. Who ever holds the power makes the rules, its very apperant in our history and it will be that way for all of time. So until the US and NATO for that matter are knocked off the top tree branch the US will continue to decide the fate of other countries, its not polotics, its simply who has the biggest guns...

more than US? Did you already forget the mess that is yet to be cleared?

:laugh:

Off the top of my head:

*large breath inhale*

There's the funding and supplying of Hizbollah's activities around Israel in Lebanon, the funding and supplying of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the funding of Syrian forces across the water, the proxy government (set up through Syria) that controls Lebanon, the funding and arming of the Iraqi Insurgency, undoubtedly funding of the Taliban in Afghanistan, funding of other various extremist groups, abducting innocent British soldiers and holding them hostage, pursuing nuclear weapons despite the rest of the world saying "no," declaring the Holocaust a fiction and threatening to push Israel into the Mediterranean Sea, and funding and supplying North Korean nuclear weapons research.

vs America:

Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Afghanistan and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government, Invading a brutal totalitarian regime in Iraq and attempting to set up a democratically, self-determined government, and getting involved in a scandal involving the college-prank-like "torture" of a few Iraqi POWs.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Windows 10 IoT LTSC is supported until 2032, Windows 11 LTSC until 2029. So oddly enough the Windows 10 version is supported longer.
    • Latest Rufus update improves new Windows 11 install method by Taras Buria Pete Batard, the maker of Rufus, a very popular app for creating bootable Windows (and other OS) media, has released a new beta version of its app. Rufus 4.15 beta is now out, and while it offers no new features, there are all sorts of improvements and fixes, including for the new Windows 11 installation method that was introduced in version 4.14 in early May. The "Silent Windows 11 installation" is a new feature whose goal is to automate operating system installation. All you have to do is boot from the drive, and then Rufus takes over, doing all things for you, such as setting up a new account, skipping ads and prompts, and more. It is a very handy tool, but initially, it had some bugs and issues that required addressing. With version 4.15 beta, Rufus is fixing that, particularly a bug with installation failing at 75%, crashes on Snapdragon X-based PCs, and more. Here is the changelog: Rufus 4.15 beta is now available for download from its GitHub repository. If you have never used Rufus before, you can check out our guide here. It is a very useful utility to have, as it allows you to deal with plenty of Windows 11's annoyances, which are still there, despite Microsoft's ongoing efforts to fix them.
    • Microsoft fixes one of Excel Copilot's most frustrating limitations by Usama Jawad Microsoft began integrating Copilot into Excel a couple of years ago and has been upgrading it with new functionalities since then. While some changes have been controversial, Microsoft is hoping to win over users by allowing them to be more productive via Copilot. To that end, it has now announced a Copilot improvement that may actually be appreciated by people who use it regularly. Excel customers often use the Copilot prompt box to issue instructions to format and customize their data, but it can become quite tiring to keep repeating the same instructions again and again. Microsoft now allows you to define Copilot personalization rules for formatting, naming conventions, formulas, and report styles. These can be accessed via Settings > Personalization, where you can explain your rules in natural language like "Always format currency in USD with no decimals", and just let Copilot take care of the rest. Microsoft is going a step further in this direction by allowing you to set workbook rules too. These rules are stored as a .Rules sheet, and are preserved while the workbook is shared. This fosters collaboration while making sure that standard rules govern the Copilot editing experience across the organization. Other advantages of this capability include pointing it to specific examples, defining dynamic formulas, and referencing an entire sheet and asking Copilot to infer rules based on that. You can leverage this feature by opening Copilot in Excel, clicking on "+", and selecting Create workbook rules. If you have an existing .Rules sheet, you can simply start listing the rules in column A as well. Personalization features are available to all Copilot in Excel users across the web, Mac, and Windows. Meanwhile, workbook rules are currently being previewed for Windows and Mac customers on the Insiders channel. General availability is scheduled after a few weeks, but a concrete date is currently unknown. Overall, the Excel capability is quite similar to ChatGPT's memory features, which allow you to permanently store items in the AI model's context window.
    • Imagine you still haven't discovered Total Commander that is doing all those things for three decades already...
    • This sounds like underneath the nice marketing spin, either someone at Adobe got tired of their lazy devs and asked Microsoft to help them sort at least some of Adobe's ancestral spaghetti code to make it go faster, or Microsoft wanted Adobe's crap to run better on Windows to make it look better when compared to Apple, so they offered to intervene. Either way, GOOD.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Vincian earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • First Post
      Jocimo earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      suprememobiles48 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      Prasann earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      515
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      172
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      90
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      78
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!