Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 18:18 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:18252$45c23358$4fe74a9$30893(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>Eeyore wrote: >> > > <snip> > >>>The big problem is making enough fissile material. A huge effort was >>>required to >>>make enough for the 3 bombs the USA exploded before the end of WW2. >> >>Less material is needed today. > > > Makes you wonder why more countries don't do it then. > > Very very tricky triggers
From: unsettled on 1 Feb 2007 18:35 T Wake wrote: > "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message > news:51fba$45c25b43$4fe752c$2080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... > >>T Wake wrote: >> >> >>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>news:epsosp$8qk_017(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> >>> >>>>In article <45BF7A40.71A37BB3(a)hotmail.com>, >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Attacking Iran would really let the genie out of the bottle. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Or contain it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It makes as much sense as attacking a wasp's nest with a heavy stick. >>>>>>>>In >>>>>>>>front of other wasps ! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I'd say less. Iran will fall out of the hand of the extremists in the >>>>>>>next 20 or so years if left alone. With Bush's help, they will >>>>>>>maintain >>>>>>>control for much longer than that. >>>>>> >>>>>>The West doesn't have 20 years. >>>>> >>>>>Says who apart from you? >>>> >>>>Anybody who can think. >>>> >>>> >>>>>>What part of "using an atom bomb in a few years" do you not understand? >>>>> >>>>>They don't have a bomb now nor will they have one in a 'few years'. >>>>> >>>>>Iran clearly wants one not for offensive use ( that would be insane ) >>>> >>>>Your assumption is 100% wrong. It will fatal to you. >>> >>> >>>It is interesting that you make the same threats as fundamentalist >>>extremists. >> >>Nope. Fundies say, "We will kill you" while BAH is saying, >>"They will kill you". > > > She is saying the beliefs of people in the west will be fatal to [us]. > Sounds remarkably like the fundamentalists. They even agree on who will be > the instrument of the deaths. I don't find this unusual. She believes what they say, you don't. > Just to be clear, on my PC her post reads "Your assumption is 100% wrong. > It will fatal to you." > I have mentally inserted the [be] because I thought it was a given. > Now if she meant, "your assumption is 100% wrong, the fundamentalists will > kill you" why didn't she say that? LOL, you're asking me? Part of the problem is she doesn't always communicate very well while sometimes she's completely clear in what she wants understood. Having lived in environments of the sort she appears to have spent her life in I suppose I generally understand the essentials she's trying to get across based on my experiences with people much like her, sometimes don't care about the specifics if I don't understand them, and don't often get excited about her posts in general. In any event, she's not so "unusual" to me as she appears to be to you. I suppose that sort of thing can be frustrating.
From: T Wake on 1 Feb 2007 19:07 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:1fc$45c2793b$4fe7468$4852(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message >> news:51fba$45c25b43$4fe752c$2080(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >> >>>T Wake wrote: >>> >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:epsosp$8qk_017(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>> >>>>>In article <45BF7A40.71A37BB3(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Eeyore wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Attacking Iran would really let the genie out of the bottle. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Or contain it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It makes as much sense as attacking a wasp's nest with a heavy >>>>>>>>>stick. In >>>>>>>>>front of other wasps ! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I'd say less. Iran will fall out of the hand of the extremists in >>>>>>>>the >>>>>>>>next 20 or so years if left alone. With Bush's help, they will >>>>>>>>maintain >>>>>>>>control for much longer than that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The West doesn't have 20 years. >>>>>> >>>>>>Says who apart from you? >>>>> >>>>>Anybody who can think. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>What part of "using an atom bomb in a few years" do you not >>>>>>>understand? >>>>>> >>>>>>They don't have a bomb now nor will they have one in a 'few years'. >>>>>> >>>>>>Iran clearly wants one not for offensive use ( that would be insane ) >>>>> >>>>>Your assumption is 100% wrong. It will fatal to you. >>>> >>>> >>>>It is interesting that you make the same threats as fundamentalist >>>>extremists. >>> >>>Nope. Fundies say, "We will kill you" while BAH is saying, >>>"They will kill you". >> >> >> She is saying the beliefs of people in the west will be fatal to [us]. >> Sounds remarkably like the fundamentalists. They even agree on who will >> be the instrument of the deaths. > > I don't find this unusual. She believes what they > say, you don't. > >> Just to be clear, on my PC her post reads "Your assumption is 100% wrong. >> It will fatal to you." > >> I have mentally inserted the [be] because I thought it was a given. > >> Now if she meant, "your assumption is 100% wrong, the fundamentalists >> will kill you" why didn't she say that? > > LOL, you're asking me? Well, yes. You interjected on BAH's behalf and appeared to have cleared up what she meant earlier on. > Part of the problem is she doesn't > always communicate very well while sometimes she's completely > clear in what she wants understood. Having lived in environments > of the sort she appears to have spent her life in I suppose > I generally understand the essentials she's trying to get across > based on my experiences with people much like her, sometimes > don't care about the specifics if I don't understand them, and > don't often get excited about her posts in general. > > In any event, she's not so "unusual" to me as she appears to be > to you. I suppose that sort of thing can be frustrating. > >
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 19:32 Lloyd Parker wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >Eeyore wrote: > >> unsettled wrote: > >> > >>>Szilard and others were trying to keep up with what the Germans > >>>were doing in their nuclear program. We sent a mission to > >>>destroy Germany's heavy water facility in Norway. > >>> > >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_heavy_water_sabotage > >>> > >>> > >>>>BAH history is BAD history. > >>> > >>>She's accurate with her time scale of 3 years. And her point > >>>is also correct that any country with decent math, science and > >>>technology can duplicate the effort in ~3 years, perhaps less, > >>>by mounting an effort much smaller than the Manhattan Project > >>>was given the wealth of knowledge in the public domain. > >> > >> > >> The big problem is making enough fissile material. A huge effort was > required to >> make enough for the 3 bombs the USA exploded before the end of > WW2. > > > >Less material is needed today. > > > But that's with sophisticated designs which require sophisticated computers > and modelling to make. It appears the N. Koreans' attempts didn't work out too well. Graham
From: Eeyore on 1 Feb 2007 19:36
unsettled wrote: > you're known for your empty blather. I rather associated you with that kind of thing actually. Graham |