kallend 2,148 #26 October 16, 2006 QuoteQuoteNukes weren't invented in the USA. Szilard patented it in 1934 and assigned the patent to the (UK) Royal Navy in 1936. Yep. He patented the idea of chain reaction and gave it to the Brits. But, if I recall, it didn't work back then. So he moved to the US and a couple of years later, he and Fermu figured out that uranium was the way to go. The Germans had figured out how to control the reaction. Having become Americanized, Szilard stole the idea of graphite rods and used them to help Fermi control the reactor he made under the bleachers at the Sussex football pitch in 1942. It was the first reactor ever invented (not visualized - actually demonstrating the technology.) edited to add: my bad, it wasn't in England. It was under the bleachers at the U of Chicago, which is in the US. It looks like Szilard moved to the US in 1938 where he talked Einstein into sending the letter to FDR and actually worked on the Manhattan Project. So I guess that the Bomb WAS invented in the US. . Incorrect, counsellor. Invention and development are quite different tasks. The US developed the bomb and made the first working examples. The invention was in Europe and the UK, and their extensive research was transferred to the Manhattan project as part of a deal between Roosevelt and Churchill. The US then reneged on the deal in 1946 with the McMahon Act.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #27 October 17, 2006 I've got an idea for a dimensional warping system that will allow instantaneous travel for distances up to 20 miles. Sure, my system doesn't work, but when somebody invents something that does that, I'll take credit! You heard it here first, folks. QuoteInvention and development are quite different tasks. Didn't Szilard's system use iodine? It didn't work, which is why he patented the working invention in 1955. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #28 October 17, 2006 > I've got an idea for a dimensional warping system that will >allow instantaneous travel for distances up to 20 miles. (off topic) Here's my idea for the ideal long distance mass transit system. Dig a tunnel between Manhattan and, say, Shanghai. Pump all the air out, and line the tunnel with steel so no air leaks back in. Build an airtight capsule, fill it with people/cargo and drop it down the tube. Put some magnetic levitation systems on the outside of the capsule so it doesn't touch the walls. About 45 minutes later, it will appear at Shanghai. Something at Shanghai grabs it. If they miss, it just drops back to NY. Zero energy expended. The cool thing about this is that it works in any direction. Assuming magnetic levitation, you can get anywhere on the planet in 45 minutes with no energy expended. LA to NY. NY to Paris. Florida to Antarctica. Maine to Eloy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #29 October 17, 2006 QuoteWhy not completely dismantle ALL nuclear weapons and impose a total ban on them? Great idea...Never happen. The problem would be that a country like Israel would never admit to having them would suddenly be the world power. Or that all the others get rid of them and then a country like N.Korea suddenly has them. Are you going to invade a country that has nukes? MAD worked as a deterant since both sides were afraid of dying. But a country like Iran might not be as afraid. My biggest fear is N.Korea will lob one at Japan when Kim comes close to death. QuoteAny country that wishes to defy the ban could then be turned over to the U.N. The UN does a poor job of controling anything. Think Darfur. What makes you think they could handle this? QuoteIf that does not curb a country's intent to build such a weapon then the international community would be justified in invading and putting a stop to any attempt of a nuclear build up. Didn't work with Korea...No one wanted them to get the bomb. Not working really well with Iran. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #30 October 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy not completely dismantle ALL nuclear weapons and impose a total ban on them? Great idea...Never happen. The problem would be that a country like Israel would never admit to having them would suddenly be the world power. Or that all the others get rid of them and then a country like N.Korea suddenly has them. Are you going to invade a country that has nukes? MAD worked as a deterant since both sides were afraid of dying. But a country like Iran might not be as afraid. My biggest fear is N.Korea will lob one at Japan when Kim comes close to death. QuoteI believe such a goal is obtainable. First, recognize each country that has nuclear weapons and those whom are capable of producing such weapons. Second, install groups comprising of persons of each country under the authority of the IAEA in each country that has nuclear ambition to oversee nuclear programs. The IAEA will control nuclear facilities. Each person would have to report to the IAEA and to the UN each day. Reports would be scrutinized for inconsistencies. Persons whose reports that do not jibe would have to answer for what is wrong and that persons country would be fined. Impose consequence to keep people and countries fair. (I know, I know, there are already consequence such as sanctions but, for the most, they are laughable and do very little). Third, any government that trys to secretly develope a weapon would then be dealt with harshly. Each and every person on the planet should have to sign an agreement stating that they are aware of consequences that will occur if their country trys to develope nuclear weapons (the common populations awareness to the problem is what is badly needed to keep a government inline. Educating the unaware will do more than anything. People need energy for everyday life. Let it be known that any country that does not abide and the power grid will be shut down. Let the common people rule their lifes in this regard. QuoteAny country that wishes to defy the ban could then be turned over to the U.N. The UN does a poor job of controling anything. Think Darfur. What makes you think they could handle this? QuoteI agree. The UN has done a poor job. Maybe it is time for a change in who and how it is ran. To much bickering and no results. What should be done about how the UN operates is clearly up to debate. All words and no action does nothing. The threats are laughable. I hate to say it but, there are times when a well placed cruise missle does a lot of good. QuoteIf that does not curb a country's intent to build such a weapon then the international community would be justified in invading and putting a stop to any attempt of a nuclear build up. Didn't work with Korea...No one wanted them to get the bomb. Not working really well with Iran. QuoteN.Korea has yet to be invaded for their ambition and it is too late now. Iran, well..., I believe they would sit down and things can be hashed out. Possibly the same with N.Korea. One problem is that no one wants to comprimise. All nuclear countries have to show a willingness to disarm. It has to start somewhere or we're all going to glow in the night"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #31 October 17, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhy not completely dismantle ALL nuclear weapons and impose a total ban on them? Great idea...Never happen. The problem would be that a country like Israel would never admit to having them would suddenly be the world power. Or that all the others get rid of them and then a country like N.Korea suddenly has them. Are you going to invade a country that has nukes? MAD worked as a deterant since both sides were afraid of dying. But a country like Iran might not be as afraid. My biggest fear is N.Korea will lob one at Japan when Kim comes close to death. QuoteAny country that wishes to defy the ban could then be turned over to the U.N. The UN does a poor job of controling anything. Think Darfur. What makes you think they could handle this? QuoteIf that does not curb a country's intent to build such a weapon then the international community would be justified in invading and putting a stop to any attempt of a nuclear build up. Didn't work with Korea...No one wanted them to get the bomb. Not working really well with Iran. Criticizing the UN is like criticizing teachers for the actions of the elected school board. The UN is as powerful as the powerful nations of the world (that's US, folks) allow it to be. WE keep the UN from being effective.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #32 October 17, 2006 I believe such a goal is obtainable. First, recognize each country that has nuclear weapons and those whom are capable of producing such weapons. Second, install groups comprising of persons of each country under the authority of the IAEA in each country that has nuclear ambition to oversee nuclear programs. The IAEA will control nuclear facilities. Each person would have to report to the IAEA and to the UN each day. Reports would be scrutinized for inconsistencies. Persons whose reports that do not jibe would have to answer for what is wrong and that persons country would be fined. Impose consequence to keep people and countries fair. (I know, I know, there are already consequence such as sanctions but, for the most, they are laughable and do very little). Third, any government that trys to secretly develope a weapon would then be dealt with harshly. Each and every person on the planet should have to sign an agreement stating that they are aware of consequences that will occur if their country trys to develope nuclear weapons (the common populations awareness to the problem is what is badly needed to keep a government inline. Educating the unaware will do more than anything. People need energy for everyday life. Let it be known that any country that does not abide and the power grid will be shut down. Let the common people rule their lifes in this regard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** That is the most unrealistic statment that I have ever read. The enforcement would totally impossible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 October 17, 2006 QuoteI believe such a goal is obtainable. No place can keep guns off of the streets, drugs off of the streets, and yet it's reasonable to think that we can keep countries from getting a nuke if they want one? QuoteImpose consequence to keep people and countries fair. When someone has a nuke, it becomes much more difficult to impose consequences. Quoteany government that trys to secretly develope a weapon would then be dealt with harshly. We tried that with Iraq. And it looks like they may NOT have been developing nukes. Quote(the common populations awareness to the problem is what is badly needed to keep a government inline. Educating the unaware will do more than anything. Yeah, let's educate the North Koreans (who are brainwashed from an early age that Dear Leader gives them everything) that they should ignore Dear Leader. Fuck. Plenty of places in the world have governments that don't bother a massacre here or there. When viewing your method of "education" with a more Machiavellian model of "education of the citizenry," which education do you think will become more ingrained? QuoteLet it be known that any country that does not abide and the power grid will be shut down. Let the common people rule their lifes in this regard. Name a place where the "common people" ruled their lives in that regard? North Korea? Israel? The US? Cuba? Jonestown? Nope. I can't think of an example... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #34 October 17, 2006 You do know that I was quoting someone else and my statment is way at the bottom? Right? I agree with you it is a silly statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 October 17, 2006 My apologies... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #36 October 17, 2006 QuoteThat is the most unrealistic statment that I have ever read. The enforcement would be totally impossible It was just wishful thinking. Diplomacy is but a pipedream and all countries should arm to the tooth and prepare for MAD. It sure looks to be heading in that direction. WW3 is but a stone throw away. Glad I kept my nuke suit and radiac and nuclear yield calculator set from my navy days. Now, I should consider a lead lined bomb shelter."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #37 October 17, 2006 While your wishing can you wish me up a billion dollars tax free? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #38 October 17, 2006 QuoteWhile your wishing can you wish me up a billion dollars tax free? DONE!!!! You can wishfully expect it any day now"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
