What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
80 Comments
- klawz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15@ BigBaRay
To think of a good exmple, think of the bomb dropped in Japan, compared to 100s of them that could have been dropped between the U.S. and Russia. So I think given this perspective, it can be "small" in comparison. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"They haven't dropped a nuke yet because they have a good enough AF and army that they don't need to use nukes."
No, it's because they aren't insane. Irrational people like you love pretending that Israel is full of fundamentalist, militant psychopaths. However, just because they use conventional warfare against unconventional enemy forces that hide out in the general population, it doesn't mean that Israel would be willing to purposely kill millions of civilians.
The civilian casualties inflicted by Israel are tragic side-effects of their enemy's choice to hide among their own families, which results in Israeli military sometimes not being able to tell who the enemy is and who the civilian is. It's not their fault. SOMEONE is shooting rockets at them, they know the location where the rockets are coming from (right down to the exact building), but they don't know which one of the 50 people presently at that location are operating the rocket launcher. What the ***** do you think they SHOULD do in such a case? The rockets are coming, people's lives are at stake, think fast!
These civilian casualties are not inflicted just for the sake of killing as many "Arabs" as possible... despite of what you think. - Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17When one nation gets bombs all their neigbors will make it a priority to get them in order to defend themselves. I have a feeling that the middle east will see a small nuclear war within 10 years or at least proxy "terrorist" nukes from countries that want to cause damage without consequences.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Just because Hezbollah (or whatever spelling is politik today) is an NGO doesn't make their activities less susceptible to criticism. If my country is attacked, I respond "disperpotionate response" is a rediculous concept as this isn't trading smacks on the playground. If I have an enemy that is determined to destroy me I will ERADICATE them or I am being irresponsible.
- hackwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"perhaps locating a neighborhood mosque or Islamic center and learning about the culture and politics of the Middle Eastern people first hand from the folks there."
Why would going to a neighborhood mosque tell you anything about the culture and politics of the Middle Eastern people, especially "first hand"? It would be like going to Christians in Japan to learn about the U.S. - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Did we forget about the cease fire that was holding until someone elected to kidnap soldiers?? (gaza and in the north) Ever heard the saying "Mess with the bull ..." . your not worth the time.
- mcsenerd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@rex3 - Yeah...sure...all this "tension" and conflict in the middle east started with one action by Israel in invading Lebanon (who was perfectly neutral and without culpability in provocation). Um...yeah...that's it. It's all Israel's fault for that one time. We'll just forget all the nuts conflict that has gone on over there since...I don't know...maybe the dawn of written history? Give me a friggin break...these people have been fighting about this that or the other for over 3000 years...guess what? I'd venture a guess that they'll continue fighting for at least that much longer...unless a bunch o tards get a hold of truly powerful weapons like nukes and ruin things for the whole rest of the world.
- ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@rex3:
Your raging anti-semitism aside, Israel is actually the size of New Jersey - and that's if you include the Palestinian territories (West Bank/Gaza). - Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A small nuclear war would be an interchange of 2-12 warheads with average yield (20-40 Kt). An interchange like that would have little noticable effect on the environment unless there were multiple high altitude bursts which is extremely unlikely due to the risk of widespread EMP damage.
Source: http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm - ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"They may realize that oil won't last forever and are looking for alternatives, like nuclear power. Can't blame them for that."
That is an incredibly naive take on the situation. Ahmadinejad is shouting "peaceful nuclear power" on one hand and "destroy Israel and America" on the other. And we are not dealing with a rational individual. Let us not forget that this is the same man who led the Iranian US Embassy takeover in the 1970s, denies the Holocaust, and controls and arms Hezbollah.
Furthermore, and to touch on your Israel comment, it has been shown time and time again that the primary interest of the Arab/Muslim terrorist organizations in the Middle East has been the destruction of Israel over all else. Israel returned Gaza to the Palestinians and instead of building it up and making something of the land, they tore the place apart, burning down infastructure and buildings which were left specifically for Palestinian use by the Israelis and partially paid for by AMERICAN donors. They then proceeded to launch rockets into Israel.
A more recent example is with Hezbollah in Lebanon: they attacked Israel using the centers of southern Lebanese towns as launching sites, hospitals and schools as armories, and then cried foul when Israel was forced to take out Hezbollah military sites placed right in the middle of civilian locations. - MrKite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8World wars are cyclical and inevitable. The problem is that as technology advances, the spectrum of destruction gets wider. Which in turn, and surprisingly, will lengthen the lull between wars. Unfortunately, this lull gives us more time to test destructive technologies and increase our capacity.
It would be much easier if we could utilize the advancements in technology to teach humans how to get along with one another. - labmouse42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@ebs16
While you can criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite, rex is obviously one. His interchange of Zionist and Jew are to common to be otherwise. - weeFred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6well done rex3 you just won the digg lunatic of the day award. Seriously dude what are you talking about? Israel is the same size as the US???? ehh Israel is the smallest country in the region and is TINY compared to the US. Even if it was the same size as the US, just what point were you trying to make?? Also you mentioned that the arab countries need nukes to protect themselves from Israel, but it's the surrounding countries that want Israel wiped off the map.
All in all i'm glad you commented, at least it shows everybody the level of intelligence of people like you. - zacmccormick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Iran getting nuclear weapons would be a very bad thing for everyone on the planet. If the laws or treaties are such that it allows them to enrich uranium behind our backs, then that is a huge problem. Whatever the laws are, we need to do something about it, not stand back and say "well, according the treaty they are allowed to enrich uranium for civilian purposes", when we know they have ill intentions and have proven to be breeding and harboring terrorist activity. If the treaty implies that we have to trust them and take their word that they aren't enriching it for weapons purposes, that is also unacceptable. The free world demands to know precisely what Iran's nuclear intentions are, and possibly take action to eliminate even the possibility of them getting ahold of nuclear weapons.
Sorry Iran, when you play with something as potentially catastrophic as nukes, you need a little better track record to gain our trust. - Phrag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Don't mean to step on anyone's toes but, what do you mean "Israel is the size of America"? Israel is about 8,500 square miles while America is over 3.7 million square miles.
- Rikkochet, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Sweet, Digg's first Jewish Conspiracy Theorist (TM)!
Everybody mod him up, the positive attention may startle this rare creature and force it into hiding. - ArmyOfFun, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The summary didn't label Iranians Arabs, it called its neighbors (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and UAE) Arabs.
- Artifez, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8That's a naive pronouncement with obvious blind spots.
- plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What's with the title, "Atomic Arabs"?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Even a small number of nuclear weapons exploding in the Middle East will result in an environmental catastrophe due to the region's geography. Unlike what happened during American testing in Nevada, the nuclear fallout here would be a disaster, both for the region itself, and for the outlying regions in Africa and Europe.
- chivas3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6um, ... Iranians are not Arabs
I guess for anyone who likes to lump all Muslims together and pretend they are all ethnic Arabs, you can carry forward with ignorant headlines like the one this digg was posted under. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8"if the usa, canada, uk, russia, china and france can do it why cant we?" -iran
"if iran can do it, why cant we?" -Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the UAE - theoallardyce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not wanting to sound like an arrogent British colonialist, but the Saudis are ***** insane and should not be allowed access to anything more powerful than a hand grenade.
- ebs16, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When you're watching a country build up arms while saying "we're going to kill you", it would be wise to do whatever possible to stop this from happening. To think that Iran is conducting nuclear research for peaceful purposes is dangerously naive, to say the least (read my above comments in response to rex3). Playing the Geneva Conventions card in this situation is absurd, regardless of other American actions.
- dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, in the US we take treaties far more seriously than most countries. Because of the way the constitution is written, treaties are enforcible as law, in the courts. The only weakness in how we handle treaties is that we have situations where the president will sign a treaty knowing that it will not be ratified by the senate. Clinton did this a couple times, as did several other presidents. Once a treaty is ratified, we are stuck with it unless we withdraw according to the treaty provisions.
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Ok if there is such a think as a limited exchange. I concur the point.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4it is propaganda but skillfuly worded not to be inaccurate.
The NPT not only allows enrichment but calls it an inalienible right(sound famular, yes the language came from our declaration of independance) BUT SA and other countries went further to ban all uranium enrichment.. partically to try to encourage a nuke free middle east, partically out of fear of all hell breaking lose and economically destructive arms races and to appease america.
But we have pulled out of many treaties.. and while i truely support an 100% nuke free middle east.. i can understand the desire to pull out of treaties that ban enrichment
But as much as i disagree with the neos, teh title is NOT inaccurate/ - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You make many great points.
The problem as I see it is that human beings become too selfrighteous and egotistical. When this happens it shuts down authentic dialog and begins a long rhetoric war. Eventually someone does something somewhere to setoff the powerderkeg of bad feelings People don't know where to draw the line between being angry and in disagreeement... and being violent.
It's very sad to watch. - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yes.. Like the fear of being invaded cause you had WMD's that you didnt think the world would care about so now you want to go nuclear. Nice logic.
Dont disguise your hatred.. vent it. - uttles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"They may realize that oil won't last forever and are looking for alternatives, like nuclear power. Can't blame them for that."
WRONG
They may realize that oil won't last forever and that when the wells dry up, or the west finds new energy resources, they will no longer matter to the rest of the world and will be left to rot in hell. Therefore, they're looking for nuclear weapons while they have the finances available so that when the oil is gone they can hold the rest of the world hostage with the threat of nuclear holocaust. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7...for now
dont forget, Germany were our "friends" before WWI .. and are our "friends" now. What about in between? - babakshirazi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5
Great, nuclear suicide bombers is all we need. - BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Will heaven ever run out of virgins?
- Valleye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is not a terrific leap to believe that development is not being done in parallel. I NEVER take a gov't word at face value. Seems naive of you to do that.
I do not believe the Iranian line, nor the Iraqi or even the US line. There are many reasons for these goings on. Defense, Pride, Oil, etc. - PieceOfShoe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5They may realize that oil won't last forever and are looking for alternatives, like nuclear power. Can't blame them for that.
They may realize that nuclear power plants are a "legal" stepping stone to nuclear weapons. It may be that the prolonged occupation of Iraq and the cluster weapon usage against civilian targets by the Israelis made them realize they need a better deterrent than simply the goodwill of other nations. Can't blame them for that, either.
I think it unlikely that we will be able to prevent the rest of the world from indefinately aquiring nuclear weapons. - jsd8cc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Don't worry, all those countries are our "friends"
- BigBaRay, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have all signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as an agreement that bans them from all forms of uranium enrichment."
Is the point in question the enrichment of Uranium?? I think they only want to enrich to 4% or something like that. You need 90% for weapons grade. but the act of enrichment is kinda like riding a bike. Once you know how and have the facilites to do it, the only thing stopping you from doing it is your self control. And do you think these people have the self control? By the looks of it we will find out. But do we really want to put the entire planet at risk so this ISLAMONAZI can have nukes. - fohat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds like a new video game!
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In the article it states that " If the Gulf Cooperation Council decides to pursue a nuclear initiative it could mean Saudi Arabia might rethink its participation in those agreements..." and that the mere suggestion of "nuclear cooperation at an Arab level" therefore raises fears in the West of an arms race.
This view isn't surprising given that the development of nuclear energy carries with it the specter of taking that technology to the next level. Egypt is the only Arab state currently running a nuclear reactor. You don't hear about it much, but what if the politics of that country went extreme? - there, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3
The NTP officially bans nuclear weapons except for for 5 major powers.... NOT nuclear technology like the monkier on this story suggests.(France, GB, US, Russia and China)
In fact NPT actually specifically allows for the peaceful use of nuclear technology.
Pakistan, Israel, India and North Korea ignored this anyway and now have nuclear weapons.
The problem is not these countries pursuiting nuclear technology (which they have every right to under NTP and international law) the problem is because of hostilitles at the moment the US administration doesn't want to chance that the technology is being pursuited for non-peaceful purposes. (This is why Iraq was allegedly invaded if anyone still rememebers Ari Flescher's countless speeches on behalf of the President).
Unfortunately nuclear technology can be used both ways (how India developed nukes quickly because of CANDU technology) If the precident holds that it's legitimate to pre-emptively attack a sovereign nattion because they might theoretically (keyword) one day use nuclear technology against you... this would leave every nation on earth vulnerable to pre-emptive attack (including the US). It's a very very risky and dangerous policy that might one day lead to secret nuclear attack on US soil without warning by nations that might not even admit they are responsible. Russia, France, Israel, China could all secretly nuke the states and make it look like someone else did it in order to eliminate a threat. (since nuclear retaliation would be immediate and few would ask questions later)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty - Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8This is also known as the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Note the emphasis on "weapons." In other words, desiring nuclear energy DOES NOT violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Because that treaty covers weapons. Bueller?
This is not a major shift in policy.
This is, respectfully, either FUD astroturfing or an inability of the submitter to understand the issue before them.
Flagged as INACCURATE. - slackerjack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@gothfox
Wrong.
Israel attacked Iraq in 1981.... For the very same thing that Iran wants to do now - have 'legal' nuke power.
I only hope Israel has have more self control this time around.
Link to article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm - dgolding, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Wrong. Pakistan, India, and Israel were never signatory to the NPT. They haven't ignored their treaty obligations - they never had the, North Korea withdrew, but was in violation of the NPT for some time. Iran is (depending on your POV) in violation - they are a signatory.
Lots of countries signing a treaty does not make it binding on those who don't, although I realize there is a movement to wish this into being. I'm entire comfortable with India and Israel possessing nukes - they won't use them. The rest scare the crap out of me. - justice7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Canada HAS nukes, just not Nuclear Weapons (anymore) or so the press says. NORAD may not be "considered" Canadian Nukes ... even if they are "present" in the Northwest Territories along the north pole pointed at Russia.
Sources
http://www.user.dccnet.com/welcomewoods/Nuclear_Free_Georgia_Strait/clearwater.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
But that wasn't my original point... Iran isn't talking about nuclear weapons, they are talking about nuclear power; and Canada has LOTS.
Guess which country is the richest in the world when it comes to Uranium and Plutonium deposits? Yes, its Canada!
A map of nuclear power reactors in Canada
http://www.nucleartourist.com/world/canada.htm
Canada doesn't have nukes?
Dream on. - Gundam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Dugg as inaccurate because the NNPT allows enrichment for peaceful purposes. The title of this article borders on propaganda.
- there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, you are wrong to correct me.
Check my comments again. I said they ignored NTP... I never made mention of them signing it.
EIther way they have nuclear weapons when the rest of the world doesn't think they should have them You may personally feel comfortable with India and Israel having nuclear weapons but most people on this planet are not comfortable with ANY nation having them... much less nations that are always on the verge of war.
By haing nuclear weapons... one defacto is encourgaging one's enemies into wanting them too (thus why Pakestan was India's yang.) or else you are at the whim of another nation's interests. The US and the Soviet Union was much the same story. In the case of Israel having nuclear weapons... it only encourages potential adversaries in the middle east into wanting nukes too. North Korea having nukes... encourages South Korea amd Japan to want them. And so on......
The problem right now... is we really don't know if Iran wants nuclear technology for peaceful purposes (which NTP clearly does allow) or simply to be Israel's ying. Again the technology can be used either way.
These weapons are evil. Period. You trying to defend any nation with them is pure politics not reason. - opusagogo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1yes this title is pure propaganda. digg is going way downhill and is full of shrills
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+310 years? i guess you guys know more than the international atomic energy commission that says Iran is 10 years away from making a single nuke and chastised us for twisting their report to make it look like their was any evidence that Iran is seeking weapons and not power.
I am not saying they aren't, I am saying there is zero evidence,,, even less than Saddam's wmds..
I still say we can wait for cheney to leave office. - mohit007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Nuclear bombs bring stability... India-Pakistan avoid full scale war because of that. Same happened with US-Russia.
Fear of any "large scale destruction" keeps any illogical political/economic provocation in cold storage. - gothfox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@slackerjack, yeah, but please note the words "half the planet away from them" in my previous post. Peckering between nations in that fishbowl I can understand, the whole "let's attack brown people somewhere far away" business - not so much.
-
Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is