h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Um, okay... question,

I'm an aspiring biologist and though stuff like inter-natn'l politics ain't my... boat (you'll just have to excuse the expression, I hope), all that plutonium and enriched uranium... well,
Isn't there going to be lots and lots... *glumly* ...of radiation off of the fallout from that kind of thing? I got caught up into lurking on here a bit because it just sounded so well, interesting, some of it.

What it seems that governments and people tend to forget or perhaps they just... 'choose' not to remember ( like it were the 1950s over again or something ), is that in (Correct my spelling if I am wrong here please, I've forgotten how it is spelled at the moment, ) Chirnobyl... after that plant had blown up... or maybe it was the 3 mile island incident as well, but I am pretty sure that it was the case in hiroshima...
You can't grow stuff on land that has too much extra ground radiation added to it. Takes a 1 hell of a long time to diffuse out I'd be willing to wager. I mean, doesn't it supposedly take like hundreds or thousands of years or something for regular old, plain uranium to degrade back into lead?

And then 13% of the population in my country is fundamentalist 'Christians' who think that there should not be any biology taught in schools, or least of all, least not any evolution & push that... with a suprising degree of success.


But the fact of the matter I am pretty sure of it, is that mutations do exist. Germs change over time,- pretty rapidly, sometimes surpringly so. And radiation does do some very odd and not yet well enough understood things to people and animals...
probably plants too... although I cannot think of any studies or experiments done on things with that at the moment.

So... whether it's using radioactively enhanced slugs to improve how well things pierce armor... or different nations fussing and fighting and contracting out new plans for bigger, fancier missiles...
*Shrug* }Sigh{

Do you think WWIII or IV may take place actually in space?
It would add a whole new dimension to combat perhaps. Or perhaps some looney would screw up and actually blow up the moon by mistake. Or maybe we would all wipe ourselves out with conventional terrestrial warfare first. Oh well...

I've often wondered about if people really did try to fight each other in space, they probably need to have things that are stronger and faster than conventional shuttles and rockets first though. It might take something very different from what has been seen before. I'm not so convinced on this new Scramjet or S-ramjet thing people have been going on about in the physics and aerospace circles...
Sure, it's a much better and faster seeming version of the ramjet... with all those impressive new number of Mach it can produce in... is it velocity?
Velocity is the one that is how fast, and acceleration was the one that was how quickly a thing gets faster, yes?
It's been awhile since I've thought with any physics like that.

That would be pret-ty scary to think of how much further you would have to push that level of technology further. I mean... say they found a way to use explosions from things like hydrogen reactions to produce combustion energy?
My chemistry professor had said why you can't is because it goes too quickly and heat even gets drawn out of the area where a hydrogen explosion goes off,

But the weirdest thing is that burning things releases water under it, when it is with gasoline or a bunch of those different -ane fuels.

Do you think it would take something like a couple of Tridents if you could use the megaton power, but... for propulsion instead of an "explosion proper" to lift something... oh, I don't know _size of a few cities or so, or at least one... up there?

*I'm looking at the stars while I am saying that*

Okay, nutty Californian is going to shut up now.

I had meant, scary to try and consider how much further it would need to be pushed... to lift something of an enormously ridiculously huge payload. Like say a city, or two. ... Or three.
*Shrugs again*

Off-topic, but you might find this interesting Thorn,

http://www.islandone.org/Propulsion/ProjectOrion.html

Thanks,
Sorry.
, yeah. Sorta like that kinda.
*nods*

Arnie, there's no need to be a just because we disagree. I think it's reasonably justifiable, in most cases, to assume a country will act in its own best interests. Presumably the leaders of Iran will act in its best interests too. If you can explain how starting a nuclear war is in their best interests, I'm all ears.

Surely the logic isn't beyond you, even if you disagree? (Of course SWL will disagree, but he hates Muslims so he's not to be trusted.)

<>

I know what hypocrisy means . They're not behaving the same though, Iran hasn't invaded Canada and Mexico. If you want to answer the question I've asked several times, instead of posting random insults, feel free.

"I think it's reasonably justifiable, in most cases, to assume a country will act in its own best interests."

Right, even when they say otherwise? Like in the run up to the Iraq war by the US?


"If you can explain how starting a nuclear war is in their best interests, I'm all ears. "

Can you show me the post where I said they'd start a nuclear war? Otherwise you're just making straw men. If you think insults are bad, I think using the straw man tactic is worse. In fact, if you insist on it, there's no point in even talking to you, as we'll just keep going in circles.

"I know what hypocrisy means ." No, apparently you don't.

<(Of course SWL will disagree, but he hates Muslims so he's not to be trusted.)>

1) I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam. I hate Alzheimers, but I've nothing against Alzheimers sufferers.
2) I don't care if you trust me or not, which is why I post links where available. Unlike some here, I base my opinions on facts and can refer to them, (when I remember where I left them )
3) Islamophobia is an oxymoron, a myth and a label to stifle debate. Those who resort to it merely display their profound ignorance.

Iran used "human wave" tactics during the Iran/Iraq war. They had "Martyrs Brigades". They sponsor suicide bombers against Israel. Are these the ations of a state that values human life? (We won't trouble ourselves here with hanging gays and rape victims).

Their President is viewed as an extremist in the West, but a moderate inside Iran, bridging the gap between religious extremists and moderate secularists. This "moderate" has called for Israel to be wiped from the map. If he's a moderate, I wonder what the extremists want?

And you seriously question why the West aren't keen on Iran developing nuclear weapons?

We cannot forbid other countries nót to create nucleair bombs, while
we keep updating ours.
Nót updating these, we stand stronger in the non-proliferation talks.



Greetings from Amsterdam.
we have a very small one.Only for the inner city

<>

You didn't. But, if Iran uses nukes, there will certainly be nuclear retaliation (if it's against Israel). This would be a nuclear war, yes? I thought that would be obvious, so, sorry if it wasn't.

The only *real* problem with any country having nukes is actually using them. Otherwise it just increases their influence the way the UK wants to.

So if Iran has nukes, and doesn't use them (my own personal opinion, no matter how enlightened *or* stupid), it's a totally different proposition to them having them and using them. The question would then become, why shouldn't Iran enjoy the same influence as other nuclear powers?

And for at least the third time, I'm not saying it would be a good thing for this to happen. I just think it's hypocrisy that the West thinks it should have the power, but not countries it doesn't like. Arnie, that's the only hypocrisy I've mentioned so far, and I'm pretty sure it's the correct usage.

"why shouldn't Iran enjoy the same influence as other nuclear powers?"

Because their leadership is absolutely insane. In. Sane.

<>

Where to begin with sh...

Ah, never mind. I'll just say, SWL, that I disagree with your tenets, and it won't get nasty.

I don't think Iran is a very nice country, although neither are China or Pakistan, and noone is quaking in their boots about them unloading every weapon they have.

You can't seperate people from ideology then pedro? Poor you. Were all Germans Nazis then?

I doubt very much that even all members of the Nazi Party were Nazis. I would expect that within religious theocracies, trying to get on in society without appearing to ascribe to the ruling religion would be somwhat difficult.

<>

I'm genuinely at a loss about what you mean here.

<>

But that's just patronising.

Going back to post 69 for a minute ( + )...

<> Me

Do you actually get the point I'm trying to make? Even although you disagree? Just let me know and I'll repeat it til even *I'm* sick of it, eh? I feel like I'm caught in some Kafkaesque nightmare here.

SWL doesn't hate Muslims, he just hates what he thinks they believe.


Anyway,

Only a few Western countries possess nuclear weapons. Most nuclear-armed nations are not Western. I think it is perfectly reasonable to deny countries we judge to be a threat to us and global stability overall huge amounts of power over us. It's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.

Just because a country is a country, doesn't mean they should be allowed The Bomb.

Ste

Be fair, SWL hates what some muslims believe. I think he's made it clear that he doesn't think all muslims think ridiculous things.

"I don't hate Muslims, I hate Islam",

is equal to,

"SWL doesn't hate Muslims, he just hates what he thinks they believe".

This is why I unsub from Forum threads.

Please enjoy your superficial nitpicking while ignoring the point.

Good luck to ya' all.

<>

At last! Thankyou Ste.

Umm, it's ok?

"You didn't. But, if Iran uses nukes, there will certainly be nuclear retaliation (if it's against Israel). This would be a nuclear war, yes? I thought that would be obvious, so, sorry if it wasn't."

Bringin' out the straw


"The question would then become, why shouldn't Iran enjoy the same influence as other nuclear powers?"

Why is the answer any different?

" I just think it's hypocrisy that the West thinks it should have the power,"

This would be hypocrisy: US threatens to wipe Russia off the map. Continually. Then does everything to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That would be hypocrisy. If you can name a country that the US is threatening to destroy completely, then yes, the US is being hypocritical. However, you have continually failed to do so.

So what straw man will you use this time?