 |
| |
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
I could see a war with Iraq turning in to a major war, but , most likely not a World War. Most middle east countries dont have very advance armies, and unless a major power gets on the middle east side, it would not be a world war. I could see a world war III happening three ways. One is a dictator bent on taking over the world takes over in Russia using current economic mess and week state of Russia's army to take controll, much like Hittler did during the Great Depression in Germany. That war would most like involve use of nuclear weapons, and may end all life on earth as we know it. Anther way is if China attack Taiwan and US comes to its defense along with its allies. Other coutries who hate US join the side of China, might see limited use of nuclear weapons, would be very nasty. Anther way is war between India and Pakistan breaks out, China enters war on Pakistan side, and US is drawn in the war at a latter time (very unlikely I think though).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Nukes were part of the Star Trek history... they were used in the third world war. And in one of the old original Star Trek episodes, the one with the first Romulan sighting where the guy who played Sarek (spocks dad) played the Romulan captain, I remember the Romulans jettisoned some space debris and hid a nuke in it. The nuke went off pretty close to the Enterprise and did some damage.
But overall, I'd say nukes wouldn't be a good idea to have on a starship. The radiation from the weapons grade materials would definitely pose significant health risks to the crew. Plus, with the shielding those ships have, the radiation wouldn't affect the ships from the outside. I think the controlled burst of energy in the phasers and the dense power of the photon torpedoes are much better weapons than nukes would be anyways. |
You know they have nukes and subs, and all most all subs have nuclear reacters, so I dont think that is a valid point, if they can put nukes on subs I think they could just as easly put nukes on a space ship and be able to protect the crew form the radiation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:22
|
|
Let's just say it doesn't make good TV to have an explosion next to your starship that not only does some damage on "deck 8," but vaporizes the ship. So, they had to write nukes out of the stories. But, never, not once, did anyone bother explaning why no one in the galaxy used nukes.
Nukes would have, for example, vaporized a Borg cube. So the only way one could have an enormously powerful hostile "race" would be to eliminate nuclear weapons.
Ah, but the original intent for Star Trek was to create a future that was as close as possible to science as one could get. Everything protrayed in Star Trek was thought technically feasible. However, the absence of nuclear weapons is a glaring omission.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kindbud
|
 |
Middle Tennessee
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
 , im gonna attempt to veer this topic on topic again
Did anyone else hear that all the arab nations got together and said if Iraq gets attacked they will take it like an attack on all of them? (ala NATO)
That seems to me that it could be the biggest lead into a prolonged global conflict. Just think how many nations can get absolutely ticked off if their oil supply just stops. Not to mention nations that naturally have aliances with Arab nations. |
This could be a good thing in the end.
First, as far as I know, no Arab nation including Iraq has the means to harm the US directly. We, on the other
hand, can bomb them to dust as will.
Second, after they have been pulverized, we can step in and help ourselves to all the oil we want. But say the conflict becomes prolonged. Then, since they won't be selling us oil (and we sure the hell won't let them sell it anywhere else), we will be forced to accelerate deployment of alternative energy sources, forever weening off their damn oil, rendering them a lot more impotent when the shooting finally stops.
Third, even if Isreal is dragged in the conflict, I see little chance of it spreading beyond the region so true global conflict seems unlikely.
Finally, it will be yet another great means of putting the best damn army on the planet to use, ensuring a wealth of weapons data and field testing, increased staff readiness, exposure to a variety of enemy strategies and tactics, and a chance to use our latest, greatest new gadgets.
Sure, lives will be lost - and that is most unfortunate- but the fact of the matter is that our armed services lose men and women every day in aircraft mishaps, training mishaps, and everyday routine operations. We will grow stronger and anyone cowardly enough to use terrorism and other BS means of taking pot shots at us will grow cold and dead.
I say bring it on! Saddam Hussein had one of the most powerful standing armies (numerically) on the planet in 1991 and our ground war lasted 4 days... Next!
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-09-2002 20:31
|