JFKvsNixon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Exactly. So it took them less than 4 years to aquire the knowledge and build a bomb. Do you imagine the world has forgotten that knowledge? There was a Pakistani scientist (Abdul Qadeer Khan) selling the secrets around every Muslinm country that wanted it 2 decades back. The difficult part is making a nucler weapon small enough to fit into a balistic missile. That becomes a lot easier if you merely need it to fit inside a shipping container. The Soviet Union was an industrialised nation, who's economy was on a war footing, what major industries do ISIS have? Do they have a processing plant? If not how could they build one, and purchase all the equipment needed to without attracting attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 The knowledge necessary to build a nuke is easy to come by. However, to build a serviceable nuke, even for a shipping container, you need either extremely highly enriched uranium, or plutonium. Enriching uranium is extremely difficult and expensive. Getting plutonium requires a specially designed reactor running on lower grade enriched uranium. IS do not have these kinds of capabilities. What you really want to worry about is somebody selling IS either a nuke, or the fuel for one. You should also worry about dirty bombs which are much easier to build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowperil Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Will you be organising a march saying how the actions of these men isn't representative of white working class males? Ridiculous suggestion for various reasons. Other than being white and working class i doubt there is any other similarity between the attackers and the poster you suggested this to. If the supporters of islam cant see that mass condemnation of the actions of isis would be for their benefit and choose to argue that they "shouldnt have to" then they are doing themselves no favours at all in a non-muslim country. Surely its doing their cause and allah a great dis-service to be so reluctant to condone isis and its actions. Whenever ive been in another country ive always respected the laws and religion of that country and shown respect. Islam needs a positive spin and organisations such as notinmyname are trying hard to promote that but seem to be coming up against this silly almost teenage tantrum response unfortunately. If i were a minority in another country and my fellow countrymen were carrying out atrocities like isis id be only too happy to distance myself from them and say that i had no affiliation with them and take whatever opportunity that arose to do so. The "have you apologised for (insert white males name here)" stance is a crazy and self harming one ultimately, ive seen the arguement with names that range from Jimmy Saville to Tony Blair! I share a colour and gender with these people only! If i was a Suppoter of Tony Blair and his labour party at the time or a radio one dj in the 70s-80s i might feel the need to though yes. Moderate muslims and extremist muslims have a common thread that is allah and in order to promote the moderate islam we are being told about then a bit of condemnation of the things that are being carried out in his name can only be a good thing cant it? Who loses if they do? It wouldnt hurt anyone to state that they didnt agree with the extreme version of islam would it? Or are muslims afraid that it wouldnt go down too well on the other side? It bewilders me that people argue against it. It stands to benefit the religion you love and follow and promote understanding and may go a long way to stop innocent muslims being wrongly labelled and attacked as extremists. I do have to ask myself why anyone wouldnt get behind this but would instead make excuses and silly arguements no to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Exactly. So it took them less than 4 years to aquire the knowledge and build a bomb. Do you imagine the world has forgotten that knowledge? There was a Pakistani scientist (Abdul Qadeer Khan) selling the secrets around every Muslinm country that wanted it 2 decades back. The difficult part is making a nucler weapon small enough to fit into a balistic missile. That becomes a lot easier if you merely need it to fit inside a shipping container. He was trading knowledge in return for knowledge, at no point did AQ Khan deal with terrorists = https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan# The west are not the only ones allowed to develope weapons you know. I see no mention of Israel that has nuclear weapons and didn't declare it and the world wouldn't have known if it wasn't for mordechai vanunu who blew the whistle and got 18 years for it= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Vanunu Edited November 23, 2015 by mafya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 He was trading knowledge in return for knowledge, at no point did AQ Khan deal with terrorists = https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan# The west are not the only ones allowed to develope weapons you know. I see no mention of Israel that has nuclear weapons and didn't declare it and the world wouldn't have known if it wasn't for mordeci vanoonu who blew the whistle and got 18 years for it. do you think we would be safe here in this country if is got the chance to make them eh maf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 do you think we would be safe here in this country if is got the chance to make them eh maf They won't, stop worrying and don't have nightmares... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 do you think we would be safe here in this country if is got the chance to make them eh maf Sure we'd be safe, we've got Trident. It's a proven effective nuclear deterrent. And worth every penny, especially when ISIS get the H-Bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Sure we'd be safe, we've got Trident. It's a proven effective nuclear deterrent. And worth every penny, especially when ISIS get the H-Bomb. Nobody has ever claimed that nuclear a deterrent would work against a terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Because it wouldn't. Now, what about a "terrorist state"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 (edited) Our response should be disproportionate because a proportionate responce won't stop them. All that'll achieve is greater conflict. I'll ask you, what's more important winning the war against ISIS or killing as many Muslims as possible? It does seem that some are all to ready to use the actions of ISIS to stick it to the Muslims. Don't these people realise that this is exactly the reaction that ISIS wants, they want a general confrontation between the West and the Islamic world. We'll win if we stick to our principles of being a fair and just society. ---------- Post added 23-11-2015 at 18:31 ---------- Because it wouldn't. Now, what about a "terrorist state"? That make sense, it's like claiming that Trident is rubbish because it hasn't helped us win the world cup yet. It's not meant to deter terrorists. Edited November 23, 2015 by JFKvsNixon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts