Explosion in London this morning

[E_Motion]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

Any calculation is only as good as the problem posed. I can assure you that whatever calculations to which you speak, are based on various assumptions that do not and cannot cover all possibilities. I can also assure you there was plenty of radioactive poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernoble (probably misspelled). And sadly, I can assure you that the history of nuclear materials is replete with false assurances of low risks.

[alanschu]

Both sides are equally dumb.

 

 

Al-Quaeda is stupid if they think that these terrorist attacks are going to help "their people." All it does is increase the resolve to do something violent back to them.....with more support and legitimacy than before.

 

However, the irrational impulse immediately following attack results in smacking back at the terrorists hard, which only fuels the terrorists.

 

But then you get into other types of speculation.....what if the UK does nothing? This could be even worse as it could encourage other terrorists organizations (or the same one) to perpetuate attacks on the UK knowing there's no retaliation....or the terrorists could lose support since with no retaliation, there'd be less cause to support the bombing of civilians since they're not bombing back.

[alanschu]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

Any calculation is only as good as the problem posed. I can assure you that whatever calculations to which you speak, are based on various assumptions that do not and cannot cover all possibilities. I can also assure you there was plenty of radioactive poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernoble (probably misspelled). And sadly, I can assure you that the history of nuclear materials is replete with false assurances of low risks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't seem to be "dirty bombs" however. I'm not familiar with the details of Chernobyl.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

However, the irrational impulse immediately following attack results in smacking back at the terrorists hard, which only fuels the terrorists.

 

But then you get into other types of speculation.....what if the UK does nothing?  This could be even worse as it could encourage other terrorists organizations (or the same one) to perpetuate attacks on the UK knowing there's no retaliation....or the terrorists could lose support since with no retaliation, there'd be less cause to support the bombing of civilians since they're not bombing back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or your just not striking back hard enough. The real problem is there is no target as such. One of the most effective ways of cutting the terrorists nuts off is to destroy the regimes that are supporting them. But if you take that road you have to be 100% commited to it.

[jodo kast 5]

Well didn't some dude say that the bomb had a mark or something like Al-Quaeda's bombs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What, like 'Acme'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some guy said so on Fox News

[alanschu]

However, the irrational impulse immediately following attack results in smacking back at the terrorists hard, which only fuels the terrorists.

 

But then you get into other types of speculation.....what if the UK does nothing?  This could be even worse as it could encourage other terrorists organizations (or the same one) to perpetuate attacks on the UK knowing there's no retaliation....or the terrorists could lose support since with no retaliation, there'd be less cause to support the bombing of civilians since they're not bombing back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or your just not striking back hard enough. The real problem is there is no target as such. One of the most effective ways of cutting the terrorists nuts off is to destroy the regimes that are supporting them. But if you take that road you have to be 100% commited to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How hard is hard enough though? And how hard to you have to get until you're no better than those you seek to destroy?

[E_Motion]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

Any calculation is only as good as the problem posed. I can assure you that whatever calculations to which you speak, are based on various assumptions that do not and cannot cover all possibilities. I can also assure you there was plenty of radioactive poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernoble (probably misspelled). And sadly, I can assure you that the history of nuclear materials is replete with false assurances of low risks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nagasaki and Hiroshima didn't seem to be "dirty bombs" however. I'm not familiar with the details of Chernobyl.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They were dirty in the sense that in those early days, building an efficient nuclear weapon wasn't possible. Those bombs were huge. And they were detonated above ground (i.e., in the air above the targets). Chernobyl is a city in a portion of the former Soviet Union that suffered a terrible and tragic disaster from a "breeder" nuclear reactor.

[alanschu]

They still seemed very much like "Nuclear" blasts though.

 

I know WHAT Chernobyl is. I don't know the details so I couldn't comment on whether or not it'd be more similar to a dirty bomb or not.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Some guy said so on Fox News

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Speaking of Fox News:

 

...works to our advantage...

 

 

I mean, I know that Fox News doesn't have a great reputation, but still:

 

They almost sound jubilant. Well, taking global warming or African poverty off the agenda would be a victory for the terrorists, and it's not going to happen. And whose is the British accent I hear?

 

Before I get flamed for anti-Americanism, I fully admit that we have people guilty of the same or worse. An adviser to Tony Blair sent a memo around on September 11 2001 saying it would be a good day to publish any bad news they didn't want to get any attention.

[Reinoc]

Yes! Who cares about global warming and African poverty? At last some good sense.

[><FISH'>]

o_o

[213374U]

How hard is hard enough though?  And how hard to you have to get until you're no better than those you seek to destroy?

I don't care. They started it.

 

 

I know WHAT Chernobyl is.  I don't know the details so I couldn't comment on whether or not it'd be more similar to a dirty bomb or not.

IIRC, there was a fire in one of the reactors. That fire triggered an explosion (or series thereof) which led to the collapse of the structure surrounding the reactor, and the emission to the atmosphere of large amounts of radiactive material. For all intents and purposes, it was a dirty bomb, albeit a very large one.

[alanschu]

How hard is hard enough though?  And how hard to you have to get until you're no better than those you seek to destroy?

I don't care. They started it.

 

I guess that's where all the shady areas come in. People have many variations on "who" started it.

 

Would me beating someone to death because they shoved me and "started it" be okay though?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

Any calculation is only as good as the problem posed. I can assure you that whatever calculations to which you speak, are based on various assumptions that do not and cannot cover all possibilities. I can also assure you there was plenty of radioactive poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernoble (probably misspelled). And sadly, I can assure you that the history of nuclear materials is replete with false assurances of low risks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Given the number of tests done in both the US and Soviet union, this information is about as accurate as it comes.

 

There is a significant differance in the spread radioactive material when it originates from recent nuclear fission, as opposed to when it is "cold" material spread by an ordinary explosion.

 

 

Speaking of Fox News:

 

...works to our advantage...

 

 

The first thing that comes to my mind is; how many people have been killed by terrorism in the last 10 years? Around 5000. How many have died of starvation and disease in Africa? Given the UN figure of 25000 people dead every week that would make it 13 Million people.

 

If you ask me, Africa is a far bigger issue than terrorism.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

How hard is hard enough though?  And how hard to you have to get until you're no better than those you seek to destroy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To quote Wonder Woman "Hit it till it stops moving"

 

This is what pisses me off in all this

 

We spend billions on weapons that minimise civilian casualties.

We purposely expose our troops to additional risk in order to minimise civilian casualties.

We feed and cloth the people as well as give medical aid. We also rebuild their infrastructure.

 

And no one really shows much in the way of gratitude or aknowledgement even in the countries we live in.

 

Now you could say thats all because they want oil. But the truth is if the US wanted oil that badly no one could stop them and they wouldnt even have to pay for it.

 

It's like no one realises just what we could do if the kid gloves came off ,or they exploit the fact that we wont do it as a weakness.

[213374U]

I guess that's where all the shady areas come in.  People have many variations on "who" started it.

 

Would me beating someone to death because they shoved me and "started it" be okay though?

Well, there were people defending the idea of Earth being flat until their webpage got hacked, not long ago.

 

And as for your example, yes. If the confrontation with that person escalated into a situation in which my life was in danger, I wouldn't hesitate to use lethal force. But that's just me.

 

 

There is a significant differance in the spread radioactive material when it originates from recent nuclear fission, as opposed to when it is "cold" material spread by an ordinary explosion.

How so? Obviously a nuclear blast will have more power to spread the nuclear waste, but as far as I know, radiation from the blast itself is pretty short-lived, albeit quite lethal.

[alanschu]

Perhaps the one person analogy didn't work, since they were supposed to mimic the larger, organizations.

 

 

However, to what ends do you go to make sure that they opposition is crushed? Particularly in terms of collateral damages and whatnot. Do you punish every Muslim, since that would give you a large probability of getting your target, or do you utilize some other method?

[E_Motion]

I can assure you that the danger is real either way.  Yes, it can be cleaned up but the radioactive poisoning of ppl exposed can't be cured.

 

Did you neglect to read that part that said calculations clearly show that a person would have to stand absolutely still within the untouched blast radious for one year in order to suffer a "fairly high" dosage.

 

Any calculation is only as good as the problem posed. I can assure you that whatever calculations to which you speak, are based on various assumptions that do not and cannot cover all possibilities. I can also assure you there was plenty of radioactive poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernoble (probably misspelled). And sadly, I can assure you that the history of nuclear materials is replete with false assurances of low risks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Given the number of tests done in both the US and Soviet union, this information is about as accurate as it comes.

 

There is a significant differance in the spread radioactive material when it originates from recent nuclear fission, as opposed to when it is "cold" material spread by an ordinary explosion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you recall the space shuttle disaster - NASA engineers thought some foam hit the shuttle during the launch - so in the days following the launch some of the world's best engineers, caring deeply about the astronauts and the space program, using the best computers in the world, concluded that there was virtually no chance that the foam could have damaged the shuttle. Following the disaster, and given the knowledge that something, most likely the foam, had harmed the shuttle, they came to a completly different conclusion.

[213374U]

However, to what ends do you go to make sure that they opposition is crushed?  Particularly in terms of collateral damages and whatnot.  Do you punish every Muslim, since that would give you a large probability of getting your target, or do you utilize some other method?

That's not what SP was talking about. You can't get every single one of them without commiting genocide. And that is obviously not acceptable. But you can minimize their operative capacities by shutting down the governments that support them. As long as there is violence there will be terrorism, and violence is a natural tendency of man.

[alanschu]

Ok then.

 

But where's the invasion of Syria? From my lacklustre (apathy?) following of world events, it sounds like they've been harbouring terrorist groups more than even Iraq has.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Ok then.

 

But where's the invasion of Syria?  From my lacklustre (apathy?) following of world events, it sounds like they've been harbouring terrorist groups more than even Iraq has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This could be the event that kicks it off.

 

Anyway the way I see it is like this.

 

They hate what we are , they hate our values of freedom and democracy and since we will never change those (one would hope) we are at empasse.

 

Where as we just hate what they do. I dont hold any particular ill feeling towards any group as long as they stay out of my backyard.

 

And you cant have it both ways. You cant expect our help when your getting killed and not expect it the other way around when your the one doing the killing.

[alanschu]

Hehehe.

 

 

For the record, I'm just playing devil's advocate to see what people have to say.

 

My opinion on the matter will remain firmly my own

[E_Motion]

Ok then.

 

But where's the invasion of Syria?  From my lacklustre (apathy?) following of world events, it sounds like they've been harbouring terrorist groups more than even Iraq has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This could be the event that kicks it off.

 

Anyway the way I see it is like this.

 

They hate what we are , they hate our values of freedom and democracy and since we will never change those (one would hope) we are at empasse.

 

Where as we just hate what they do. I dont hold any particular ill feeling towards any group as long as they stay out of my backyard.

 

And you cant have it both ways. You cant expect our help when your getting killed and not expect it the other way around when your the one doing the killing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is virtually no government in the world capable of repressing all terrorism - Saddam Hussein's cruelty was apparently close though. But if there is a strong national consensus that terrorism is wrong, and if ppl believe that the police will investigate fairly, then citizens in any country can stop most terrorists acts before they occur. But when they don't trust their own government, they won't bring their worries to the governments attention because they don't want to be part of an injustice. And if they see "rich" countries acting with arrogance and indifference to sufferings in their countries, they may wrongly think that violence against those "rich" countries is the right thing.

 

"Cracking down" on terrorism has not decreased terrorist acts. The number of terrorist acts in the past year was greater than any year since records have been kept.

[Kaftan Barlast]

This is the last post I will be making on the subject as I dont think it belongs in this thread to this degree.

 

 

Do you recall the space shuttle disaster - NASA engineers thought some foam hit the shuttle during the launch - so in the days following the launch some of the world's best engineers, caring deeply about the astronauts and the space program, using the best computers in the world, concluded that there was virtually no chance that the foam could have damaged the shuttle. Following the disaster, and given the knowledge that something, most likely the foam, had harmed the shuttle, they came to a completly different conclusion.

 

 

Their calculations failed, yes. But I was saying that both actual tests have been made aswellas as calculations. These all concluded that a dirty bomb, a bomb that works by spreading radioactive material by means of an ordinary explosion, is not a functional weapon.

 

The latest experiments were made by the US Departement of Energy which made the "assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for 1 year, the radiation exposure would be 'fairly high' " announcement.

 

 

How so? Obviously a nuclear blast will have more power to spread the nuclear waste, but as far as I know, radiation from the blast itself is pretty short-lived, albeit quite lethal.

 

Although Im not a nuclear physiscist and cannot give anything beyond what Ive read on the matter, I would assume it has to to with both the spread and the activity of the matter, "hot" material as opposed to "cold" material that may not have even been involved in nuclear fission at all.

 

 

 

In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies.

[SteveThaiBinh]

They hate what we are , they hate our values of freedom and democracy and since we will never change those (one would hope) we are at empasse.

 

Where as we just hate what they do. I dont hold any particular ill feeling towards any group as long as they stay out of my backyard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If 'they' means the terrorists, you may be right. But isn't it possible that they also hate us for what we do? As for the millions of non-terrorists across the world who dislike the West, that's certainly the case.