Well, that's a pretty strong indictment, it wasn't "Muslims" - it was a group of extremists and crazies, who happen to have been Muslim. Not all Muslims are terrorists the same way not all Christians are Catholics.

 

So are you calling Catholics extremists?

 

No, but there are far more extreme Christians than Catholics. However, we cannot indict an entire religion because of the acts of a few crazies. Islam, as a religion, makes more sense to me than say, believing in magical underwear.

 

+1, though I'm looking into that magical underwear sect!

 

 

No offense then, maybe I should've said: Believing in alien ghosts possessing us and guiding our lives

 

ignorance is bliss.

 

A few things:

Russia did more than just steal it, they had a guy working on the Manhattan Project. However, the same guy that stole the technology and gave it to his home country (Russia), becamse the top KGB spy in the US, and helped avert disaster during the Cuban Missle Crisis. So, he screwed us on one hand, and helped us more profoundly on another.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was a Jew, but he was all-American, born on this soil. His parents were Germans who came to the US.

Germany did began trying to find way to split and harvest the power of the atom long before we did, but at Albert Einstein's urging, we began to undertake the research in that area far more seriously fearign what Europe and the world would be like if Hitler had nuclear weapons, especially since Germany was leadign the way in rocket powered bombs (V1 & V2)- so they had a viable, and nearly unstoppable delivery system to boot. The Brits were onto Germany's effort too, and kept bombing their heavy water plant to keep Germany's progress towards development of a nuclear weapon on hold. (I read, and watch a lot of History channel, and military channel...)

As for whether the uranium/plutonium to power our weapons came from a german submarine. Well, that's not the accepted historical reference of where it came from. However recent challenges to that history have risen- suggesting that we (US) did take uranium from the German boat in 1945. So far, those assertions have not been critically qualified. Even so, the major powers in WW2 (Germany, USA, Japan, Britan) were ell eyeballing atomic weapons. The Manhattan project began in 1942, three years before the German sub was captured- so, the US was well on their way- if anything the capture may have helped speed up the process. The uranium and plutonium was enriched to weapons grae at UC Berkeley, where Oppenheimer was a professor.

Lastly:
Yes, I think we as the world's super power should have asay in who has and who can't have nuclear weapons, but I do see the irony as well, as we are the only country that's ever used a nuclear weapon on another. Be that as it may, Japan had that coming. They started the war with us, by murdering nearly 3,000 US sailors. WHile Japan was about to lose the war anyway, an invasion would have caused an estimated 120,000 dead US service members, and two - four times that many dead Japanese. If we didn't defeat Japan swiftly, there was a chance Russia would enter the war and we'd have ended up with a cold war in the Pacific (East and West Japan) and in Europe (East & West Germany). So, the use of nukes, though tragic- kept the casualties to the enemy and saved over 100,000 US service member's lives (not counting the U.S. POW's that were killed in the blasts.

Knowing how destructive such a weapon is, we can't risk that power falling into the hands of countries that have corrupt governments and unstable leadership. We shoudln't have let Pakistan and India have them- in my opinion. But, imagine what the world would be liek today, if everyone who wanted nukes had them...

Kuwaitt would be part of Iraq now and Saddam Hussein would still be in charge of Iraq. This would have been the case because to invade Kuwaitt/Iraw would put over a million allied soldiers at risk of meetign death in a blinding flash of light followed by 1,000,000 degrees, with one or two well-placed bombs.

Isreal would not exist.

However, this may not have happened because quite posibly, had Iran and Iraq had atomic weapons, both countries would probably be nothing more than glass parking lots today, had they both had nukes during their 10-year war.

So, no. there is no reason to give or allow unstable countries to have nuclear weapons. We'd be better off if we could get rid of all of them- but since that's not likely to happen, we're better off only having the countries that have them today- who are smart enough not to use them ever again, keep the keys to the lock.

The above was in no way intended to say the people in the middle east are all extremists- but the ones with the voice all seem to be. History has shown us how persuaasive radical speech can be... You guys remember Hitler, right?

We cannot let that happen- and that's why I believe, before they get out of line, we need to kick Iran and Korea in the arse if they want to keep on trying to build nukes... There is too much at risk.

 

atleast my "unstable country" Pakistan doesnt start wars. lol........... cant say anything

 

Partly because they can't, they have too much internal problems to look outside for trouble. Also, see India, subtext Kasmir.