Strike that.

 

It's almost like they only read the title.

 

I am of course, talking about DR and Hades.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by thepixiesrock

I read through it and I think that when the nuclear program is concerned, beyond completely dismantling it forever, is a waste of resources.

I am of course, reffering to this.

 

There is no such think as a "safer" nuke.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as the weapon exists its not safe. It doesn't matter if it is in "proper" hands or was stolen. It doesn't matter if it doesn't explode accidentally if it can explode purposely. The result is the same. It doesn't matter if the detonation material works or not because it can still be used to make a "dirty" bomb and still have the killing effectiveness, but at a longer stretch of time.

 

The very nature of a nuclear missile cannot be made safer without dismantling.

As long as the weapon exists its not safe.  It doesn't matter if it is in "proper" hands or was stolen.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't explode accidentally if it can explode purposely.  The result is the same.  It doesn't matter if the detonation material works or not because it can still be used to make a "dirty" bomb and still have the killing effectiveness, but at a longer stretch of time.

 

The very nature of a nuclear missile cannot be made safer without dismantling.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See, now you are changing the words around to better suit you. The word used was "safer" not safe. Maybe you should read the first page of this thread.

You can't make something safer when it was never safe to begin with, Pixie Stick.

You can't make something safer when it was never safe to begin with, Pixie Stick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you did read the first page, in it's entirety, you have just proven to me, and the entire forum, that you are an incredibly dense person.

I read the first post and I think it is a load of bull. A waste of our resources. I think it is downright sickening that two companies are makingit a competition of who can make the better bomb.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

You can't make something safer when it was never safe to begin with, Pixie Stick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you did read the first page, in it's entirety, you have just proven to me, and the entire forum, that you are an incredibly dense person.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know Pixie Stick, you are way too excitable and aggressive to have a proper discussion. Bye.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

You can't make something safer when it was never safe to begin with, Pixie Stick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Had the title read "Safe Nukes" and you did not put any thought or prior knowledge at all into the title, then sure, oxymoron.  Fine.

 

The title, however, reads "Safer nukes" the fact that it says safer automatically shows that it is being compared to something.  When you use a word such as that, and you are comparing the safeness of something, even if it is deadly, it isn't an oxymoron.  One is safer than the other.  It doesn't contradict itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

 

 

You know Pixie Stick, you are way too excitable and aggressive to have a proper discussion.  Bye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hahahahahahahaha, when Hades is unable to understand something, he get's frustrated. He then calls people excitable and agressive when they put something in a larger font to show them they missed what was said.

 

Unable to have a proper discussion Hades my boy?

I don't think that is the case.

 

YOU're the jerkface.

It's possible to make a safer anything.

 

The discussion was never about whether or not it was a good use of resources.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by alanschu

Maybe not Alan, but it is something that needs to be onsidered.

I was only refuting your oxymoron stance.

It's separated from the "safety" issue as far as I'm concerned.

It is a waste of resources to make a nuclear bomb safer when they are designed not to be safe to begin with. They are designed to kill and nothing else. The only way to make a nuclear bomb safer and make use of proper resources is to dismantle the missiles.

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

They are making them so that they will be less likely to go off accidentally, and so that if they get stolen, they will not be able to be fired. You think of it like they are designed to just blow up anything. They are designed to blow up who ever the creator of the bomb wants to blow up. There are a number of ways they can make a nuclear bomb safer, and they have nothing to do with dismantling them.

You can't make something safer when it was never safe to begin with, Pixie Stick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And yet, you can take a sharp knife and holster it... "

Finish him!

Well,you both of course, would be wrong.  A safe nuke would be less vulnerable to accidental detonation and so secure that any stolen or lost weapon would be unusable.  That's a safe nuke.  An unsafe nuke is one that could be set off easily and accidentally detonated, and able to be used if stolen. 

 

It's almost like you fellas didn't even read any of what Eddo quoted for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So an unsafe nuke would be like Russia's nukes?

An unssafe nuke is a nuke existing at all.

It is a waste of resources to make a nuclear bomb safer when they are designed not to be safe to begin with.

 

Are you just being obtuse for the sake of stirring things up?

Edited June 15, 200619 yr by alanschu

It is a waste of resources to make a nuclear bomb safer when they are designed not to be safe to begin with.

 

Are you just being obtuse for the sake of stirring things up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I prefered before the edit Alan.

I was afraid he'd think I was agreeing with him.

That is just my view on nukes, Alan. Nothing more and nothing less.