Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: elmatador who wrote (126907)	12/23/2016 1:24:07 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217733

Re <<Did anyone stop to think that nuclear capabilities are defined by protocols signed in the past?>> ... you are either joking or naive, believing that just a piece of paper would stop a signatory from working to develop via supercomputer simulation and actualise in hardware all the bits and pieces in complete and / or semi-knock-down kits weapons of all description Re <<Look up SALT Strategic Arms Limitations The so-called civilizations are guided by sovereign countries that engaged on correcting the mistakes of the past.>> ... you are not joking, but naive. Re <<What someone in China might have thought is:>> ... China is not a signatory to SALT and follow-ons, be it strategic or theatre devices Re <<How about we develop nuclear capabilities to rival the other superpowers?>> ... little need. only need to prepare to destroy everything once over. Re <<They would aim that arsenal to China and we don't want to live with that thought.>> ... that arsenal is aimed at china, but at 250 : 5000, that arsenal cannot be used. Re <<I know you want promotion and become the boss, but where we are going to get the technology from?>> ... lacking technology is not a problem. what have you been reading? Re <<Like Iran, we pretend to be pacific and build the defense capabilities as we are doing it.>> ... and here i thought china is the only major country not fighting in any sort of wars. perhaps i am mistaken and you are correct. but, please excuse me for a giggle, cannot be helped. Re <<we need the oceans for trading and supplies. We don't have a navy for open sea, Maximum we can do is impress, that Filipino guy. We go for it and someone will hit us where we don't expect.>> ... you have not been keeping up to date with the latest maritime peace-keeping protocol. it is a dangerous way forward to discern macro but without synthesizing correct info Re <<As the Brazilian fish analogy, Elmat comes to the Thread, his own Swamp and clean the acts>> ... you mean the thought pollution? hasn't been a problem. is fun. and relatively easy to very easy. Mq, relatively, is much more demanding of bandwidth even if he is often enough wrong, and i would not rate Mq scribblings as just thought pollution.