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

    • "just $100 per TB"? Just? Are we trying to make this seem like the new normal? Kinda weird to make it sound like that is not a ridiculously expensive asking price.
    • The reviews you refer to mean nothing. Where there is no journalism there is no reason to call the gaming media's opinion pieces "reviews". For GP games there is indeed a metric for success - increasing subscriptions. Which turns in revenue. The only circumstance in which subs do not rise when great is being released is a Game Pass system where the company is close to fully saturated with customers in a subscription. However, in that case as the theory goes you spend aplenty in all kind of games - from shady live service cash cows and customer offending agitprop crap in purple colours to robust and entertaining single player games. And keep a solid level of profitability. Ignoring the simply innocuous but mid games MGS has released primarily of the second kind.
    • Report: Microsoft to use AWS to help GitHub deal with a major surge in demand by Pradeep Viswanathan Thanks to the surge of coding AI agents, GitHub's usage has skyrocketed over the past 12 months. To meet this demand, GitHub started with a plan in October 2025 to increase capacity by 10x. However, by early this year, the company realized that it needed 30x scale. This rapid growth has caused severe strain on the platform's reliability, resulting in several small outages over the past few months. In April, GitHub published a long blog post explaining the steps it is taking to resolve these reliability issues. In the post, the company also confirmed that it is working toward a multi-cloud architecture for better resilience. Today, Business Insider reported that GitHub is turning to Amazon Web Services to help deal with a major surge in AI-driven coding activity. It is important to note that GitHub is still in the process of moving completely to the Azure cloud. The current plan is to move the platform fully to Azure by 2027 so that it can scale better as per developer demand. Therefore, the current decision to utilize AWS might be part of a short-term plan to meet immediate demand. A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed that GitHub is using multiple cloud providers with the following statement: For Microsoft, the decision highlights the operational pressure behind the AI boom. GitHub has to stay reliable for developers at a time when rivals such as Codex, Cursor, Claude Code, and other AI coding tools are gaining attention. And the decision to use AWS for computing capacity seems practical given the circumstances.
    • It's growing on me, however, your right, it make better usability sense if the tabs were bellow the address bar.
    • Qwen 3.6 is better value per dollar, and you can run it locally for free.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      vjlex earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Reacting Well
      Dys Topia earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Conversation Starter
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      Console General earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Twozo Technologies earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      517
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      106
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      88
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      68
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!