NationStates Jolt Archive

Brazil has joined the select group of countries with the capability of enriching uranium as a means of generating energy.

A new centrifuge facility was formally opened on Friday at the Resende nuclear plant in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

The Brazilian government says its technology is some of the most advanced in the world.

Brazilian scientists insist their technology is superior to that of existing nuclear powers. They claim the type of centrifuge in use at Resende will be 25 times more efficient than facilities in France or the United States.

Sensitivity over that technology led to a standoff two years ago with the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN watchdog.

More at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4981202.stm
Better retarget some nukes their way? Or accept that as technology advances and the world changes, nuclear power is becoming mainstream and less sensitive? :D

Discuss.

Better retarget some nukes their way? Or accept that as technology advances and the world changes, nuclear power is becoming mainstream and less sensitive? :D

Discuss.
The more countries which have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someday they will be used. It's like having a neighborhood where everyone has a bomb buried under everyone else's house, and anyone can detonate anyone else's house at will.

Someday, some fruitcake ( like the current fruitcake in Iran! ) is going to go off the deep end and wipe a whole bunch of people off the map. Count on it! :(

The more countries which have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someday they will be used.

So unilateral disarmament is a damn good idea if we want to avoid their use?

So unilateral disarmament is a damn good idea if we want to avoid their use?
Sure ... provided we don't give a shit when 1/3 of our citizens and 1/2 of our cities go "poof!" :rolleyes:

The more countries which have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someday they will be used. It's like having a neighborhood where everyone has a bomb buried under everyone else's house, and anyone can detonate anyone else's house at will.

Someday, some fruitcake ( like the current fruitcake in Iran! ) is going to go off the deep end and wipe a whole bunch of people off the map. Count on it! :(
As the gun nuts like to say:

"An armed society is a polite society!!"

Well, if they are using it for power I have no problem with it (the same is true of Iran or any nation)....the less But if they use it to create nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, that's a totally different situation.

I trust Brazil with using its technology for peaceful purposes, but I definitely don't trust Iran.

As the gun nuts like to say:

"An armed society is a polite society!!"
Well, I've sometimes been called "a gun nut," but my reasons for owning guns have nothing whatsoever to do with being "polite." :D

Well, if they are using it for power I have no problem with it (the same is true of Iran or any nation)....the less But if they use it to create nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, that's a totally different situation.

I trust Brazil with using its technology for peaceful purposes, but I definitely don't trust Iran.
Do you trust Pakistan that is 97% Muslim?

Do you trust Pakistan that is 97% Muslim?
WTF does that have to do with anything?

I thought it's more like a town where every household has a gun. :D

Some licensed, some not, but ultimately that does not influence which get used.

Well, if they are using it for power I have no problem with it (the same is true of Iran or any nation)....the less But if they use it to create nuclear weapons in violation of the NPT, that's a totally different situation.

I trust Brazil with using its technology for peaceful purposes, but I definitely don't trust Iran.
I would rephrase that: "I trust Brazil right now, and I don't trust Iran, right now."

Part of the problem is that things change, governments change, tinpot dictators sometimes take over, wild-eyed religious nuts sometimes take over. The more governments there are with atomic weapons ( or the capability of making them ), the more likely it is that one of these fruitcakes will get their hands on them at some point. Then, all the bets are off. :(

Didn't Brazil have nuclear capability at one point already? What is the problem with having nuclear technology? And people won't be more likely to use it if everyon has it, they'll be less likely because their enemies will have it and not just super powers.

I thought it's more like a town where every household has a gun. :D

Some licensed, some not, but ultimately that does not influence which get used.
Atomic weapons, like guns, are useful for deterrence only if those you hope to deter are scared of them.

The more countries which have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someday they will be used.

So unilateral disarmament is a damn good idea if we want to avoid their use?

Sure ... provided we don't give a shit when 1/3 of our citizens and 1/2 of our cities go "poof!" :rolleyes:

Am I the only one here that thinks Eut's second post contradicts his first?

Didn't Brazil have nuclear capability at one point already? What is the problem with having nuclear technology? And people won't be more likely to use it if everyon has it, they'll be less likely because their enemies will have it and not just super powers.
True for the marginally rational. Not true for the zealots, "true believers," or outright fruitcakes.

Oh noes!!1!1 And everyone knows that only the US should be allowed to have nuclear capabilities :rolleyes:

But seriously though - good for them, and any other country that goes nuclear. If they're going to use it for power then awesome, if they're going to build nukes then, shucks, how awful, I mean noone else has ever done that eh?

Oh noes!!1!1 And everyone knows that only the US should be allowed to have nuclear capabilities :rolleyes:

But seriously though - good for them, and any other country that goes nuclear. If they're going to use it for power then awesome, if they're going to build nukes then, shucks, how awful, I mean noone else has ever done that eh?
You just don't listen, do ya! :rolleyes:

Brazil is just trying to protect their sexy women from foreigners.

Damn you Brazilian nuclear program! :upyours:

True for the marginally rational. Not true for the zealots, "true believers," or outright fruitcakes.

Zealots? Believers? Fruitcakes? Hmm... dare I say it?




Sounds a bit like GW Bush huh? :D

Brazil is just trying to protect their sexy women from foreigners.
Heh! I can well understand why! :D

BTW ... my daughter-in-law is 1/2 Brazilian. :)

True for the marginally rational. Not true for the zealots, "true believers," or outright fruitcakes.

Funny that we have so many of those in the US too, eh?

You just don't listen, do ya! :rolleyes:

What, to you assuming that every non-Caucasian based country is going to use nuclear capabilities to destroy the US?

Zealots? Believers? Fruitcakes? Hmm... dare I say it?

Sounds a bit like GW Bush huh? :D
No. Bush is just in over his head. I don't see him as zealot, true believer, or fruitcake.

What, to you assuming that every non-Caucasian based country is going to use nuclear capabilities to destroy the US?
[ Addresses the Bench ] Your Honor? The prosecution rests.

Funny that we have so many of those in the US too, eh?
Unfortunately, no one country, region or what-have-you is immune. :(

Heh! I can well understand why! :D

BTW ... my daughter-in-law is 1/2 Brazilian. :)
What happened to her other half? :p

No. Bush is just in over his head. I don't see him as zealot, true believer, or fruitcake.

I see Bush for what he is.

A dumbass (just kidding, but you are smart if you managed to find this).

How am I going to be able to invade and spread democracy to the Brazilian women now? :D

I had a much dirtier joke, but I'll hold back

No. Bush is just in over his head. I don't see him as zealot, true believer, or fruitcake.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did he not start a war with a currently fairly awful casualty rating based on his religious beliefs? His words being something along the lines of 'God said "George, go invade Iraq" so I did'?

[ Addresses the Bench ] Your Honor? The prosecution rests.

Way to not answer the question there, likin' it.

What happened to her other half? :p
Heh! It was labelled "Made In Italy." :p

No. Bush is just in over his head. I don't see him as zealot, true believer, or fruitcake.

George W. "I believe that God wants me to be president" Bush isn't seen by you as a true believer? What then do you need to do to fit that category?

Way to not answer the question there, likin' it.
There was no "there" there. You simply proved my case by constructing some specious strawman and then attacking it vigorously.

Part of the problem is that things change, governments change, tinpot dictators sometimes take over, wild-eyed religious nuts sometimes take over. The more governments there are with atomic weapons ( or the capability of making them ), the more likely it is that one of these fruitcakes will get their hands on them at some point. Then, all the bets are off. :(
Pakistan.

There's your problem right there. Hundreds of millions of people, nukes, a state of civil war in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, all run by a military dictator whose internal credibility is currently non-zero only because the alternatives appear worse.

That's not going to stay like that forever. He led a coup, after all.

God help us if the Ecuadorians go nuclear

I'm not too worried about Brazil. I'm more worried about countries like Iran & North Korea, whose leaders are of questionable sanity. But my biggest concern is that some whacko terrorist will get their hands on one and either think they can get away with using it because they're independent of a government, or they are impatient for their 72 virgins and don't care if we glass their countries.

There was no "there" there. You simply proved my case by constructing some specious strawman and then attacking it vigorously.

So what, exaclty, was I not listening to originally?

George W. "I believe that God wants me to be president" Bush isn't seen by you as a true believer? What then do you need to do to fit that category?
http://www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

Pakistan.

There's your problem right there. Hundreds of millions of people, nukes, a state of civil war in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, all run by a military dictator whose internal credibility is currently non-zero only because the alternatives appear worse.

That's not going to stay like that forever. He led a coup, after all.
I agree totally ... unfortunately. Sigh. :(

there really isn't much we can do about countries developing nuclear arms so I guess its time we start funding all those anti-nuke do-hickeys or we could just nuke the Earth so no nation ever builds nukes again Win/Win I say

BTW ... my daughter-in-law is 1/2 Brazilian. :)

that’s so wrong its right :D

Pakistan.

There's your problem right there. Hundreds of millions of people, nukes, a state of civil war in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, all run by a military dictator whose internal credibility is currently non-zero only because the alternatives appear worse.

That's not going to stay like that forever. He led a coup, after all.Eeezackly.

I'm of the opposite opinion from Eutrusca (surprise, surprise). I think the more countries have them, the better, because then there's more reason for responsible countries to work together to keep nuclear material out of individual hands. Right now, why should a small country give two shits if Iran gets nukes? They've got no skin in the game.

http://www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html

believing in the reality of paranormal or supernatural events after one has been presented overwhelming evidence that the event was fraudulently staged.

Sooo... Bush doesn't fit this? *Cough*election*Cough*:D:p

So what, exaclty, was I not listening to originally?
Suggestions: scroll back, re-read, think, and then post.

I can't be arsed to go back and find my own posts so you can choose to apply actual thought to them, something you should have done originally instead of simply regurgitating the propaganda you've apparently swollowed.

Brazilian General: Those damn foreigners keep stealing our hot sexy women, it is time to use the bomb

*Cue dramatic music*

Brazilian General: Fire the missile, time to destroy those bastards!

*U.S.A. nuked*

Brazilian General: Time to celebrate! Bring in the women who are left!

... that’s so wrong its right :D
Huh? :confused:

Huh? :confused:

Call to power wants to know, as I'm sure the rest of us do, how old your daughter-in-law is.

Suggestions: scroll back, re-read, think, and then post.

I can't be arsed to go back and find my own posts so you can choose to apply actual thought to them, something you should have done originally instead of simply regurgitating the propaganda you've apparently swollowed.

So me saying I support countries besides those dominating the global - well lets be honest, most of the globe - having nuclear capabilities is propaganda? As in, we're looking at a massive problem with greenhouse emissions, and we should encourage developing countries to use alternatives to fossil fuels is propaganda?

Sounds to me like the one saying 'no! We mustn't let anyone else go nuclear because they might use it against is, or threaten us with it!' is the one who's been downing the propaganda by the plateful.

Call to power wants to know, as I'm sure the rest of us do, how old your daughter-in-law is.

Wouldn't the fact she's a daughter-in-law mean she's married to one of his kids?

Wouldn't the fact she's a daughter-in-law mean she's married to one of his kids?

Marriages can be anulled...

Or just divorced :D

Wouldn't the fact she's a daughter-in-law mean she's married to one of his kids?

This is all important information, Number Six.

Call to power wants to know, as I'm sure the rest of us do, how old your daughter-in-law is.
She's about 34, just like my son, who is her husband. :D

Right now, why should a small country give two shits if Iran gets nukes? They've got no skin in the game.
When Japan got a double-tap from the arsenal of democracy, the fallout fell on the Pacific. The next use is not going to be so convenient.

When Japan got a double-tap from the arsenal of democracy, the fallout fell on the Pacific. The next use is not going to be so convenient.
True. Just take a look at the aftermath of Chernobyl. :(

Call to power wants to know, as I'm sure the rest of us do, how old your daughter-in-law is.
...and which half is brazilian.

This is all important information, Number Six.
- And we want information... information... information...

True. Just take a look at the aftermath of Chernobyl. :(

Actually, the area around Chernobyl looks rather pleasant, as far as nature goes.

Actually, the area around Chernobyl looks rather pleasant, as far as nature goes.
Man-made climate change, natural climate change or nuclear war, nature always finds a balance. The only question is whether we are to be part of it.

Better retarget some nukes their way? Or accept that as technology advances and the world changes, nuclear power is becoming mainstream and less sensitive? :D

Discuss.
The more the merrier. Every country should have some.

Do you trust Pakistan that is 97% Muslim?

Condoleeza Rice said in a hearing at the senate committe that the US has "plans" in case their man Mushy loses control.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050119-021304-4003r.htm

Condoleeza Rice said in a hearing at the senate committe that the US has "plans" in case their man Mushy loses control.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050119-021304-4003r.htm
( shrug ) That's par for the course. Every advanced nation on the planet has contingency plans for an almost incredible variety of scenarios.

Brazil's Constitution:

Article 84, incise 19:
(It's the duty of the President...) to declare war, IN CASE OF FOREIGN AGRESSION, backed by the Congress...

Article 18 (iirc), incise 14(iirc too) (I do know it IS in the Constitution)
Nuclear energy will only be researched for peaceful purposes.

Brazil's military history in the last 100 years:

ONE war declared, against Italy, during WWII, after Italy attacked, and on behalf of the Allies.

USA Constitution:

(It's the duty of the president) to declare war, when backed by Congress... (regardless, my point, of foreign aggression).

Nuclear energy used for military purposes is NOT forbidden in the US (QED Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

USA military history in the last 100 years:

WWI (aggression)
Interference against the Russian Revolution. (aggression)
WWII
Korean War (aggression)
Vietnam War (aggression)
Kuwait
Iraq (aggression)
Afghanistan
US-backed coups (aggression)

Yeah, Eutrusca, it seems really likely that Brazil will do something idiotic with nuclear weapons before the US does. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, it ALREADY DID. I call to the bench the spirits of those that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for the idiots that claim that I hate the US because I'm presenting unpleasant facts: You're discussing the possibility of Brazil harming people, so I should assume you "hate Brazil", right? You don't? So, as you've seen, no, I don't hate the US, unless you're a firm believer in the "It's ok to libel as long as it's not me" theory.

( shrug ) That's par for the course. Every advanced nation on the planet has contingency plans for an almost incredible variety of scenarios.

Does those plans include the CIA monitoring all traffic and signals camping inside Pakistan and allegedly even having personnel inside their nuke facilities ?

Condoleeza Rice said in a hearing at the senate committe that the US has "plans" in case their man Mushy loses control.

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20050119-021304-4003r.htm
Interesting read and after reading, I feel that it backs up claims that I made earlier in regards to threatened strikes against Iran. I had suggested that all bets are off if the US attacked Iran, especially if the US uses "limited" nuclear strikes. If the Muslims in Pakistan rise up against the current government due to a US incursion into Iran, all hell could break loose. That is why I was scoffing at the war mongers here at NS and their thirst for bombing Iran "back to the Stone Age". Careful what you wish for, you just might get it and a whole lot more than you bargained for.

Brazil's Constitution:

Article 84, incise 19:
(It's the duty of the President...) to declare war, IN CASE OF FOREIGN AGRESSION, backed by the Congress...

Article 21, incise 23
Nuclear energy will only be researched for peaceful purposes.

Brazil's military history in the last 100 years:

ONE war declared, against Italy, during WWII, after Italy attacked, and on behalf of the Allies.

USA Constitution:

(It's the duty of the president) to declare war, when backed by Congress... (regardless, my point, of foreign aggression).

Nuclear energy used for military purposes is NOT forbidden in the US (QED Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

USA military history in the last 100 years:

WWI (aggression)
Interference against the Russian Revolution. (aggression)
WWII
Korean War (aggression)
Vietnam War (aggression)
Kuwait
Iraq (aggression)
Afghanistan
US-backed coups (aggression)

Yeah, Eutrusca, it seems really likely that Brazil will do something idiotic with nuclear weapons before the US does. :rolleyes:

Oh wait, it ALREADY DID. I call to the bench the spirits of those that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for the idiots that claim that I hate the US because I'm presenting unpleasant facts: You're discussing the possibility of Brazil harming people, so I should assume you "hate Brazil", right? You don't? So, as you've seen, no, I don't hate the US, unless you're a firm believer in the "It's ok to libel as long as it's not me" theory.

Fixed. Also, for your benefit:

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:avVldRTLblYJ:www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/RevCon05/reports/43.pdf+Brazil+federal+Constitution+Law+%22Peaceful+ends%22&hl=en&gl=br&ct=clnk&cd=1

Actually, the area around Chernobyl looks rather pleasant, as far as nature goes.

Thats because almost no humans live or go there, so nature had a chance to bloom. Still, would be better if we just preserved nature minus the radiation :p

Thats because almost no humans live or go there, so nature had a chance to bloom. Still, would be better if we just preserved nature minus the radiation :p

ACCIDENTS worry me. Brazil going "nucular bloodfest" doesn't.

But, you see, Brazil's president is a bit more to the left than Kerry. Result? Lots of morons in, for instance, the Washington Times, calling for the US to BACK A MILITARY COUP here before Lula was elected (And likely after). Cute, ain't it? Democracy-building at its finest.

ACCIDENTS worries me. Brazil going "nucular bloodfest" doesn't.

But, you see, Brazil's president is a bit more to the left than Kerry. Result? Lots of morons in, for instance, the Washington Times, calling for the US to BACK A MILITARY COUP here before Lula was elected (And likely after). Cute, ain't it? Democracy-building at its finest.

As fair as its said, its impossible that there would be another accident like Chernobyl. Im in no point of saying if thats true or not, it was just something i saw somewhere, that reactors are way too advanced and safe now.

I'm not worried about Brazil being a nuclear power though, but Eutrusca does have a point. Its not guns that kill people, people kill people, but hell, guns sure help.

I'm not worried about Brazil being a nuclear power though, but Eutrusca does have a point. Its not guns that kill people, people kill people, but hell, guns sure help.

Yes, but Eutrusca never showed this kind of worry when it's about the fact that the US, with a much more violent history than Brazil, actually HAS the bomb. Brazil doesn't. We have technology that our own Constitution forbids us to use for that end. Do check what I wrote before...

WWI (aggression)

One word. Lusitania. Yes, the Germans did provide warning, and yes, there are arguments over what exactly the ship was carrying, but the fact simply remains that the Germans took the action of sinking a passive ship carrying US civilians, the first tangible act of aggression.

Oh wait, it ALREADY DID. I call to the bench the spirits of those that lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And for the idiots that claim that I hate the US because I'm presenting unpleasant facts

The perpetration of this argument simply staggers me. The alternative was to sacrifice hundreds of thousands - if not many more - of soldiers to take Japan... bah. This is one of those issues that I can't express in words properly, because the fatuity of it just amazes me.

The only "unpleasant" fact there is that the US valued the lives of its own soldiers more than those of its opponent. Furthermore, Japan had the opportunity to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, so the loss of life from Nagasaki rests with them.

If the Muslims in Pakistan rise up against the current government due to a US incursion into Iran, all hell could break loose.

I would not worry too much about that. The Musharraf faction of the army establishment (excluding the intelligence establishment) is the biggest dog in the fight and it has a prize and a time-honored tradition of selling itself to protect itself.

One word. Lusitania. Yes, the Germans did provide warning, and yes, there are arguments over what exactly the ship was carrying, but the fact simply remains that the Germans took the action of sinking a passive ship carrying US civilians, the first tangible act of aggression.

Even if you assume that ship was an innocent one, and that's an if, there's all the other wars.

The perpetration of this argument simply staggers me. The alternative was to sacrifice hundreds of thousands - if not many more - of soldiers to take Japan... bah. This is one of those issues that I can't express in words properly, because the fatuity of it just amazes me.

My point was that the US was willing to use them. And if it were meant to prevent death, it could have been done in non-populated areas. Why the choice of killing people to make a point as opposed to making that same point without killing people?

My point was that the US was willing to use them. And if it were meant to prevent death, it could have been done in non-populated areas. Why the choice of killing people to make a point as opposed to making that same point without killing people?

Maybe. But if it took two bombs on populated areas to bring Japan to surrender, how much of an effect would dropping a bomb on a bit of empty land have made?

One word. Lusitania. Yes, the Germans did provide warning, and yes, there are arguments over what exactly the ship was carrying, but the fact simply remains that the Germans took the action of sinking a passive ship carrying US civilians, the first tangible act of aggression.

The perpetration of this argument simply staggers me. The alternative was to sacrifice hundreds of thousands - if not many more - of soldiers to take Japan... bah. This is one of those issues that I can't express in words properly, because the fatuity of it just amazes me.

The only "unpleasant" fact there is that the US valued the lives of its own soldiers more than those of its opponent. Furthermore, Japan had the opportunity to surrender after the first bomb was dropped, so the loss of life from Nagasaki rests with them.
Please do not feed the troll as it only serves to make an even larger troll. :D

Maybe. But if it took two bombs on populated areas to bring Japan to surrender, how much of an effect would dropping a bomb on a bit of empty land have made?

Japan was already near-surrender, was there real need for the nuclear bombs?

Maybe. But if it took two bombs on populated areas to bring Japan to surrender, how much of an effect would dropping a bomb on a bit of empty land have made?

They could at LEAST have dropped on empty land first - a warning shot if you will.

Please do not feed the troll as it only serves to make an even larger troll. :D

Hence his post-count? :D

Please do not feed the troll as it only serves to make an even larger troll. :D

Sure, Forrest, flame me as opposed to responding to my POINTS. Because I'm only a troll in your mind.

They could at LEAST have dropped on empty land first - a warning shot if you will.
Are you naive enough to believe that a nation, whose people had already shown they were ready to ram planes into ships to win, would have been intimidated by a few miles of empty land turned to glass?

We had to show we were willing to nuke the living in order to scare them into surrender.

ACCIDENTS worry me. Brazil going "nucular bloodfest" doesn't.

But, you see, Brazil's president is a bit more to the left than Kerry. Result? Lots of morons in, for instance, the Washington Times, calling for the US to BACK A MILITARY COUP here before Lula was elected (And likely after). Cute, ain't it? Democracy-building at its finest.

And it's even cuter when the same people who say it's the United States' duty to build Democracies across the world cop out with the "America is a Republic, not a Democracy" excuse when they're called upon to hold up to democratic principles.

Hence his post-count? :D

Which is lower than Eutrusca's? Sure, go with that line of thought, I'm really enjoying it.

Better retarget some nukes their way? Or accept that as technology advances and the world changes, nuclear power is becoming mainstream and less sensitive? :D

Discuss.

A couple of impertant points got left off. 1) Brazil is letting the IAEA safegaurd the program. 2) Brazil has good reason to step up it's quest for nuclear power, as one of it's major energy sources is of questionable stability.

But in the end Brazil and the IAEA agreed a system of safeguards to ensure that the new facilities would not be channelled into weapons production.

Friday's opening at Resende is being hailed as a major step forward in Brazil's development and it comes amid renewed concerns about energy supplies in South America.

Last week Bolivia announced plans to nationalise its gas reserves, prompting fears of price rises. As a big importer of Bolivian gas, Brazil sees nuclear energy as one of several strategic alternatives.

That being said, the final section of the run down on Brazil's nuclear program (link below) does bring up some questions about Brazil's intentions.

Didn't Brazil have nuclear capability at one point already? What is the problem with having nuclear technology? And people won't be more likely to use it if everyon has it, they'll be less likely because their enemies will have it and not just super powers.

Nuclear power capability? Yes, they've been producing nuclear power for quite some time. Nuclear weapons capability? No, but they did have a rather advanced research program.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/brazil/nuke.htm

Brazil's military history in the last 100 years:

ONE war declared, against Italy, during WWII, after Italy attacked, and on behalf of the Allies.

USA military history in the last 100 years:

WWI (aggression)
Interference against the Russian Revolution. (aggression)
WWII
Korean War (aggression)
Vietnam War (aggression)
Kuwait
Iraq (aggression)
Afghanistan
US-backed coups (aggression)

And for the idiots that claim that I hate the US because I'm presenting unpleasant facts:

You might want to correct a couple of those "facts"... (Then again, you may want to let them stand and expose your ignorance of the US's involvement in WWI and Korea.)

Are you naive enough to believe that a nation, whose people had already shown they were ready to ram planes into ships to win, would have been intimidated by a few miles of empty land turned to glass?

We had to show we were willing to nuke the living in order to scare them into surrender.

Twice? Right. At CIVILIANS? Riiiight. :rolleyes:

Look, the point is, the only country that has actually used nuclear bombs against CIVILIANS is the US. And here we see Eutrusca going "oh noes" when a much more peaceful country than the US acquires the TECHNOLOGY even though its own laws prevent it from using that technology for war.

You might want to correct a couple of those "facts"... (Then again, you may want to let them stand and expose your ignorance of the US's involvement in WWI and Korea.)

By all means. I'll concede WWI (even though there's doubt) and Korea, because I can AFFORD TO. Here's why: Any explanation for all the OTHER aggressions? No? Then my point remains, only with two examples (out of 6) fewer: The US has proven much more warlike - and much more willing to be warlike without cause - than Brazil.

Look, the point is, the only country that has actually used nuclear bombs against CIVILIANS is the US. And here we see Eutrusca going "oh noes" when a much more peaceful country than the US acquires the TECHNOLOGY even though its own laws prevent it from using that technology for war.

Nuclear power is the sort of thing that doesn't go out with the current administration. Brazil may be peaceful now, but there's always the possibility of regime change, and if we get a hostile regime then we end up with nukes on our side of the hemisphere.

As for the provision in Brazilian law prohibiting nukes, do you honestly believe that laws can't be changed or altered? If it Brazil feels the need to build weapons, the only thing stopping them are their neighbors.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't like nukes and I don't think weapons like that should ever be used. But, this is the real world, and better we have a monopoly in this hemisphere than them.

Nuclear power is the sort of thing that doesn't go out with the current administration. Brazil may be peaceful now, but there's always the possibility of regime change, and if we get a hostile regime then we end up with nukes on our side of the hemisphere.

As for the provision in Brazilian law prohibiting nukes, do you honestly believe that laws can't be changed or altered? If it Brazil feels the need to build weapons, the only thing stopping them are their neighbors.

Brazilian Constitution would only be changed by a coup or by 2/3 of the congressmen (and even then, some principles in it can't be changed, among them the one that states we will only wage war in case of foreign aggression). A coup isn't likely to take place except an US-backed one, and, even in this case, it'd be hard for it to happen. 2/3 of the congressmen wouldn't vote for such a change either, simply because we, as a people, dislike the idea of playing World's Chuck Norris, unlike some people *cough*BUSH*cough*.

Now, don't get me wrong. I don't like nukes and I don't think weapons like that should ever be used. But, this is the real world, and better we have a monopoly in this hemisphere than them.

Oh, right. Because the US couldn't suffer a "regime change" either? QED Bush himself? The US is very willing to attack without provocation even WITHOUT a regime change.

For your information.

I live in a Portuguese-speaking country, south of the Equator, west of Greenwich. WHAT AM I?

For crying out loud... -_-

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Brazil (as far as I know) is a relatively sane country. I would trust them with nukes.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over this. Brazil (as far as I know) is a relatively sane country. I would trust them with nukes.

And you know it right. One of the fairly few things Brazil can pride itself in is its diplomacy, another one is its peacefulness. A third one is the fact that we won't build nukes, even if we can be trusted with them.

The more countries which have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that someday they will be used.

Couldn't this argument be also used for firearms? Well, other than the fact that they already are in use. Also, I understand that people argue that in a gun paradise, violent criminals would at best, be able to initiate it before being put down.

It sounds a bit like the MAD principle really.

Sure, Forrest, flame me as opposed to responding to my POINTS. Because I'm only a troll in your mind.

Fun isn't it - when he can't actually refute you, he'll go and insult you. That's how they wage war in the US clearly - aggression in th face of failed diplomacy :D

But then I'm meant to be letting it drop...

Fun isn't it - when he can't actually refute you, he'll go and insult you. That's how they wage war in the US clearly - aggression in th face of failed diplomacy :D

But then I'm meant to be letting it drop...

Even funnier is the fact that, afterwards, he goes complain to the mods when someone calls him an "old man". Y'know, after calling me a troll... :rolleyes:

At a second thought, he's right. If he truly were an old man, he'd not behave like a child. :p

Better retarget some nukes their way? Or accept that as technology advances and the world changes, nuclear power is becoming mainstream and less sensitive? :D

Discuss.

I have no problems with Brazil further developing it's nuclear program. They already have two nuclear reactors, IIRC, and are building a third. They also might be interested in developing the technology for use in naval vessels, should they ever want to replace the Sao Paulo and build a new carrier, or develop a nuclear powered submarine to replace their older diesels.

I don't think they would bother with weapons. They had a nuclear weapons program back when the nation was under military control. I believe all the research was given up when the civilian government was reestablished in the early 80s.

Brazil was already concerned about an arms race with Argentina at that time. Both nations have since terminated their nuclear weapons programs, and the two nations have been relatively amicable since. There is no reason for Brazil to heighten tensions in their region by building nuclear weapons, much less having to deal with the international consquences.

Brazil got much of their nuclear technology via ouside assistance DURING the military control of the government, and most was from NATO (Germany and France mostly, I believe). If the United States had any fears regarding Brazilian nuclear weapons, then the time to act was 30 some years ago before the cat got let out of the bag. Complaining about it now does nothing constructive.

Brazil is fairly energy independent, with lots of hydroelectric power (even if some of the dams are horribly inefficient), and fair sized natural gas deposits. If they want to take it one step further, and isolate their economy from shocks due to energy costs by enhancing their nuclear power capablities, I'm all for it.

The U.S. could learn a thing or two from Brazil's energy policy. ;)

I have no problems with Brazil further developing it's nuclear program. They already have two nuclear reactors, IIRC, and are building a third. They also might be interested in developing the technology for use in naval vessels, should they ever want to replace the Sao Paulo and build a new carrier, or develop a nuclear powered submarine to replace their older diesels.

I don't think they would bother with weapons. They had a nuclear weapons program back when the nation was under military control. I believe all the research was given up when the civilian government was reestablished in the early 80s.

Brazil was already concerned about an arms race with Argentina at that time. Both nations have since terminated their nuclear weapons programs, and the two nations have been relatively amicable since. There is no reason for Brazil to heighten tensions in their region by building nuclear weapons, much less having to deal with the international consquences.

Brazil got much of their nuclear technology via ouside assistance DURING the military control of the government, and most was from NATO (Germany and France mostly, I believe). If the United States had any fears regarding Brazilian nuclear weapons, then the time to act was 30 some years ago before the cat got let out of the bag. Complaining about it now does nothing constructive.

Brazil is fairly energy independent, with lots of hydroelectric power (even if some of the dams are horribly inefficient), and fair sized natural gas deposits. If they want to take it one step further, and isolate their economy from shocks due to energy costs by enhancing their nuclear power capablities, I'm all for it.

The U.S. could learn a thing or two from Brazil's energy policy. ;)

I don't know if you're Brazilian or not, but you're sure knowledgeable! o_O

Also, our Constitution renounces it (and almost everything else besides nukular weapons that those SOBs that raped Brazil from 64 to 84 espouse).

As fair as its said, its impossible that there would be another accident like Chernobyl. Im in no point of saying if thats true or not, it was just something i saw somewhere, that reactors are way too advanced and safe now.


Actually - the same generation of reactors that spawned Chernobyl are still in operation, still in the same state of poor repair, still producing radioactive waste that Russia has no way to deal with... and still (some of them) practically on the doorstep of Europe. And now, Putin is talking about doubling nuclear capacity in Russia - and they are still going to be building bankrupt reactors, because they lack the investment capital and the progressive design.

Given the situation - given the low-tech, coupled with the age of the current generation of reactors... not only is it possible for another Chernobyl type disaster... it is practically invitable.

The perpetration of this argument simply staggers me. The alternative was to sacrifice hundreds of thousands - if not many more - of soldiers to take Japan...

Or.... not.

It's a common argument, sure... but there would ONLY have been a huge loss of life invading Japan... IF we invaded Japan.

The war was over. Japan would have capitulated shortly.

The US just wanted a chance to use the technology they'd spent all that time and money on.

Or.... not.

It's a common argument, sure... but there would ONLY have been a huge loss of life invading Japan... IF we invaded Japan.

The war was over. Japan would have capitulated shortly.

The US just wanted a chance to use the technology they'd spent all that time and money on.

Five bucks on the next three words Grave reads here by a neocon being "You hate America".

:D

BTW, good points, Grave. ;)

Look, the point is, the only country that has actually used nuclear bombs against CIVILIANS is the US.

And that's why the US is so scared of nuclear technology in hands they can't absolutely control.

Karma's a bitch.

Five bucks on the next three words Grave reads here by a neocon being "You hate America".

:D

BTW, good points, Grave. ;)

Thanks. :)

I don't hate America. I see what America COULD be.... I see the image it was founded to resemble. And, then I see a divided wannabe-theocracy, governed by corporate backscratching and politics of fear - and I wonder WHY America has chosen to be this, instead of a light in darkness.

Thanks. :)

I don't hate America. I see what America COULD be.... I see the image it was founded to resemble. And, then I see a divided wannabe-theocracy, governed by corporate backscratching and politics of fear - and I wonder WHY America has chosen to be this, instead of a light in darkness.

I have that same feeling, which doesn't keep Eutrusca and Whittier (to name a few) from claiming I hate the US.

I have that same feeling, which doesn't keep Eutrusca and Whittier (to name a few) from claiming I hate the US.

I wouldn't like to claim whether or not it was true in the case of those two, fine citizens... but a lot of people think that one 'hates' the nation, if one refuses to accept the 'official version' and 'toe the party line'.

Some people are so deep into party politics, that the literally cannot envision how a person could be a 'patriot' and NOT a pawn of the Powers That Be.

Which is why people like Bush Sr get away with saying things like (his comments about how...) Atheists aren't patriots... and shouldn't be considered citizens.

I wouldn't like to claim whether or not it was true in the case of those two, fine citizens... but a lot of people think that one 'hates' the nation, if one refuses to accept the 'official version' and 'toe the party line'.

Some people are so deep into party politics, that the literally cannot envision how a person could be a 'patriot' and NOT a pawn of the Powers That Be.

Which is why people like Bush Sr get away with saying things like (his comments about how...) Atheists aren't patriots... and shouldn't be considered citizens.

WHAT? He said THAT???

These people always find ways to surprise me!

Send me a link?

Edit: Never mind, quick google search proved it true. That said, I have a question.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! WILL IT BE A THOUSAND MORE YEARS BEFORE THOSE THAT BROWN-NOSE THIS LUNATIC REALIZE THE DEGREE OF ABSURDITY OF WHAT THEY DEFEND???

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! WILL IT BE A THOUSAND MORE YEARS BEFORE THOSE THAT BROWN-NOSE THIS LUNATIC REALIZE THE DEGREE OF ABSURDITY OF WHAT THEY DEFEND???
I believe Eminem wrote a terrific rap lyric about replacing the Constitution with a Parental Advisory sticker. That's pretty much the kind of moral integrity we are dealing with.

WHAT? He said THAT???

These people always find ways to surprise me!

Send me a link?

Edit: Never mind, quick google search proved it true. That said, I have a question.

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! WILL IT BE A THOUSAND MORE YEARS BEFORE THOSE THAT BROWN-NOSE THIS LUNATIC REALIZE THE DEGREE OF ABSURDITY OF WHAT THEY DEFEND???

Off the top of my head

"Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/hardy/203/nonbeliever/page50.html#

And the Right claims Fred Phelps is not one of theirs. Heh.

And the Right claims Fred Phelps is not one of theirs. Heh.

Well, I can understand that... politics is, to a certain extent, about being either popular, or feared. Bush got by on being popular for making everyone scared of something ELSE.

Phelps is not popular, so it is in the best interests of the Bush regime to distance themselves from him as much as possible.

You'll note that, with November elections coming down the line, a lot of the 'Republican faithful' are actually pulling the same trick on Bush, now.

I don't know if you're Brazilian or not, but you're sure knowledgeable! o_O

Also, our Constitution renounces it (and almost everything else besides nukular weapons that those SOBs that raped Brazil from 64 to 84 espouse).

I role-play as Brazil on another website...I've learned a lot. :)

Coincidentally...in that RP, it is now 2015, and Brazil has nuclear weapons. :p

Once we run out of fossil fuels, nuclear power is the only way to go. Most renewable energy sources are simply too expensive or impractical. I think we should accept nuclear energy and focus on how to use it safely instead of campaigning against it.

Or.... not.

It's a common argument, sure... but there would ONLY have been a huge loss of life invading Japan... IF we invaded Japan.

The war was over. Japan would have capitulated shortly.

The US just wanted a chance to use the technology they'd spent all that time and money on.
Why did WW2 happen? Part of the reason is that in WW1 some people stopped when the war seemed won, not when the enemy was crushed. I can certainly understand the reason behind the Americans' decision. What would you choose: to bomb two cities to the ground or to create the premise for yet another war? The Americans simply wanted to be absolutely sure that WW3 will not happen (or at least that it would not be started by Germany or Japan). I can certainly understand that.

Do you trust Pakistan that is 97% Muslim?

WTF does that have to do with anything?
It's where Osama is currently hiding for one thing, for another thing, the extermists there would over throw the Government and set up a Theocracy just like Iran if given half the chance also. I think India and Pakistan are the ones most likely to use Nuclear Weapons. They Hate each other.

brazil with nukes, i have no problem with. iran however.... thats another story. iran has already threatened befor, and basically all muslim countries over ther in the middle east hate the jews. but im not worried. the israelis will pwn iran befor iran pwns them.