Time to end this wacko.
Time to show up with the A Game.
Way passed time to end this wacko.
I think it's time we show him what the Us is capable of. One flex of our military peen and he's going to die. We've been showing it to him, from a distance and by proxy of a proxy by using the totally worthless nato coalition.
Time to show up with the A-Team.
Won't happen. I'd like it to, but it won't. You know why.
www.themarknews.com/articles/6043-nato-d...
NATO Denies Gadhafi 'Suicide Plan' to Destroy Tripoli
www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/...
More Kadaffy news...
www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/...
Someone explain why we haven't sent in seal team 6? In; kill or capture, out. Done.
Because this isn't a single compound out in the middle of nowhere. They'd get killed out there by themselves.
More Kadaffy news...
www.strategypage.com/qnd/libya/articles/...
Someone explain why we haven't sent in seal team 6? In; kill or capture, out. Done.
Because this isn't a single compound out in the middle of nowhere. They'd get killed out there by themselves.
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
According to who? it was supposedly a top secret project...
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
According to who? it was supposedly a top secret project...
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
Ummm... The news. CBS, CNN, and FoxNews.
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
According to who? it was supposedly a top secret project...
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
Did you just reply to yourself?
Today if NATO or USA army makes a foreign intervetion and the less difficult apears, very soon it´s like talking about a pyrrhic victory, the sacrifice of our soldiers isn´t worth (but if ememy attacked us first). And what if the year of elections is too near? You can bet the the president has got a good headache.
The second matter is que post-war. Real world isn´t like a videogame where you kill the evil lord and all is solved. A civil war can start, and nobody can know surely who is the good and the evil faction. Who are goint to fight?
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
According to who? it was supposedly a top secret project...
According to all the official reports. Even on a top secret mission (which by the way clearly was not so top secret after the fact since they were releasing a stream of details to the media), they still have to account for dead soldiers. They couldn't just pretend everyone made it out alive if they didn't. And if it was shot down it would be much more likely for deaths to have occurred than an accident during the landing.
It also fits with other details. Since it was a surprise assault, there was likely no time for an organized resistance to form prior to the landing. You wouldn't have a bunch of guys on the wall with MANPADS or anything like that if you're trying to stay hidden and low key. After they stormed the compound, everyone inside was dead or subdued, so who would be shooting them down? And with what? Despite Black Hawk Down, RPGs aren't a very effective way to shoot down helicopters. It generally requires massed shooting lots of rounds and lots of luck.
And where are you getting your information?
And where are you getting your information?
Judging by what he said, the Twitter Neighbor.
I think it's time we show him what the Us is capable of. One flex of our military peen and he's going to die. We've been showing it to him, from a distance and by proxy of a proxy by using the apparently worthless nato coalition.
Time to show up with the A Game.
Determining the governments of other nations again?
I think it's time we show him what the Us is capable of. One flex of our military peen and he's going to die. We've been showing it to him, from a distance and by proxy of a proxy by using the apparently worthless nato coalition.
Time to show up with the A Game.
Determining the governments of other nations again?
Isn't that exactly what NATO is doing right now (and with the approval of the UN)?
I stronly suggest that the Gadaffi Government buy a nuclear strike on the french aircraft carrier from the Russians for a billion dollars.
1. It isnt a war crime, as it is a defensive strike on the french millitary asset off its own coast being used by a European state looking to determine the government of a non european nation.
2. A nuclear strike will put nuclear weapons on the table for any nation that can afford to pay for the nuclear strike to defend themselves from US and European agression (without attacking the civil populations of those nations - something that would spark a nuclear war).
3. it buypasses any international spread of nuclear assets - without stopping the defensive use of nukes by nations who otherwise have no access.
I stronly suggest that the Gadaffi Government buy a nuclear strike on the french aircraft carrier from the Russians for a billion dollars.
1. It isnt a war crime, as it is a defensive strike on the french millitary asset off its own coast being used by a European state looking to determine the government of a non european nation.
2. A nuclear strike will put nuclear weapons on the table for any nation that can afford to pay for the nuclear strike to defend themselves from US and European agression (without attacking the civil populations of those nations - something that would spark a nuclear war).
3. it buypasses any international spread of nuclear assets - without stopping the defensive use of nukes by nations who otherwise have no access.
I stronly suggest that the Gadaffi Government buy a nuclear strike on the french aircraft carrier from the Russians for a billion dollars.
1. It isnt a war crime, as it is a defensive strike on the french millitary asset off its own coast being used by a European state looking to determine the government of a non european nation.
2. A nuclear strike will put nuclear weapons on the table for any nation that can afford to pay for the nuclear strike to defend themselves from US and European agression (without attacking the civil populations of those nations - something that would spark a nuclear war).
3. it buypasses any international spread of nuclear assets - without stopping the defensive use of nukes by nations who otherwise have no access.
Makes perfect sense, after all Lybia was a beautiful, peacful country until that evil NATO stepped in and started mucking everything up.
Yeah, Russia totally wants to spark a nuclear war. And yeah, nuclear weapons that will absolutely be used without attacking the civilian population centers. I'm guessing you're practicing for your stand up comedy routine.
If Gadafi has got a secret plan to get nukes... he has been too good to hide it. I don´t think it.
Gadafi is making the strategy of scorched earth about oilfields...Isn´t he? Sadam Hussim did it in the past... if my memory doesn´t fail.
North Korea can be so stupy to sell nuclear weapon to Iran o Lybia, but Russia knows the first rule of arms traficcker is be sure your stuff will not used againt you.
If Gadafi has got a secret plan to get nukes... he has been too good to hide it. I don´t think it.
Gadafi is making the strategy of scorched earth about oilfields...Isn´t he? Sadam Hussim did it in the past... if my memory doesn´t fail.
Anytime the West does anything in the Mid- East it's "because of oil".
And yes, Saddam lit up the oilfields, causing massive environmental damage (but you don't hear about that from the enviro-weenies) as well as economic damage. I am not sure if 'Daffy has actually lit his wells on fire or just trys to wreck the oppostitons oil wells. But, honestly, if he is trying to smash the oppositions oil wells (or vice versa) they are legitimate military targets.
North Korea can be so stupy to sell nuclear weapon to Iran o Lybia, but Russia knows the first rule of arms traficcker is be sure your stuff will not used againt you.
Exactly. And even if Russia wasn't worried about those nukes being used against them, they don't want to be held directly accountable for whoever those nukes are used on.
If Gadafi has got a secret plan to get nukes... he has been too good to hide it. I don´t think it.
Yeah, a lot of countries would like to have nukes, but on a mile stretch of road that puts them about an inch closer to having them than the other countries.
Gadafi is making the strategy of scorched earth about oilfields...Isn´t he? Sadam Hussim did it in the past... if my memory doesn´t fail.
Saddam did it. Like R_H said, they are legit targets. However, I think Gaddafi's plan is to wait this out. NATO has proven fairly inept at providing useful air support, especially when once the fighting enters the cities. The general public won't support ground troops. With economics taking the forefront in the media all over the world, people will grow tired of spending money on bombs and aircraft with no visible result. I think he's going to hope that NATO gives up and then try to take back the country from the rebels. He doesn't want to lose money on oil fields that he sabotaged. However, he will do so rather than let the rebels benefit from them.
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
Ummm... The news. CBS, CNN, and FoxNews.
Aaahhh, The Big Six™ its time to think for yourself. Do a little research. They changed their story so many times you really can't believe them at all...
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
Ummm... The news. CBS, CNN, and FoxNews.
Aaahhh, The Big Six™ its time to think for yourself. Do a little research. They changed their story so many times you really can't believe them at all...
Well the Big Six report is the one that makes the most sense. As for changing their story, they didn't, the White House press release did, and that's what happens when they are releasing details as they get them, before the official reports can be compiled. I've seen that stuff firsthand, how a SITREP over the radio ends up differing vastly from the final report submitted after the fact.
Besides, I still consider the Big Six vastly more trustworthy than the citizens of Pakistan.
Not to mention one of their helicoptors was blown up when they left the Bin Laden compound, I wouldn't be surprised if half of them died...
A) It was an Army chopper.
B) It hit something (building, IIRC) on the way into the compound and crash landed. Since it was top-secret tech, it was blown up by the Americans before they left.
C) All US military personnel made it out alive.
According to who? it was supposedly a top secret project...
According to all the official reports. Even on a top secret mission (which by the way clearly was not so top secret after the fact since they were releasing a stream of details to the media), they still have to account for dead soldiers. They couldn't just pretend everyone made it out alive if they didn't. And if it was shot down it would be much more likely for deaths to have occurred than an accident during the landing.
It also fits with other details. Since it was a surprise assault, there was likely no time for an organized resistance to form prior to the landing. You wouldn't have a bunch of guys on the wall with MANPADS or anything like that if you're trying to stay hidden and low key. After they stormed the compound, everyone inside was dead or subdued, so who would be shooting them down? And with what? Despite Black Hawk Down, RPGs aren't a very effective way to shoot down helicopters. It generally requires massed shooting lots of rounds and lots of luck.
And where are you getting your information?
Can't find the original, but here are some photos, doesn't look like they blew it up, looks like it crashed to me...
Can't find the original, but here are some photos, doesn't look like they blew it up, looks like it crashed to me...
Well yeah of course it crashed, that's exactly what they said happened. And then they blew it up. I don't see what about that photo disputes that. In fact it seems to confirm it, since it's just showing the tail section, the one most likely to be intact after they attempted to destroy the helicopter via explosives, but no the rest of it.
I'm going by civilian eye witness reports... don't know what your going on...
Ummm... The news. CBS, CNN, and FoxNews.
Aaahhh, The Big Six™ its time to think for yourself. Do a little research. They changed their story so many times you really can't believe them at all...
Well the Big Six report is the one that makes the most sense. As for changing their story, they didn't, the White House press release did, and that's what happens when they are releasing details as they get them, before the official reports can be compiled. I've seen that stuff firsthand, how a SITREP over the radio ends up differing vastly from the final report submitted after the fact.
Besides, I still consider the Big Six vastly more trustworthy than the citizens of Pakistan.
Ok, so the white house changed the story so many times that we can't believe what they say. Semantics...
but did the basic facts of the SITREP change or was stuff added to it? Not only that, but Osama Bin Laden has been dead from two different problems, one he had a disease that was fatal within 4 years back in 2001 and he was doing dialysis which is fatal in the same general time frame. Who knows maybe he had a miracle happen and was magically cured...
Can't find the original, but here are some photos, doesn't look like they blew it up, looks like it crashed to me...
Well yeah of course it crashed, that's exactly what they said happened. And then they blew it up. I don't see what about that photo disputes that. In fact it seems to confirm it, since it's just showing the tail section, the one most likely to be intact after they attempted to destroy the helicopter via explosives, but no the rest of it.
The Big Six™ are claiming that one of the rotors clipped a building and was damaged and that they then blew up the helicopter. If they were protecting the 'top secret' aircraft, then they would have to blow up the main motor and the tail propeller, that did not happen. It appears some kind of explosive was used on the main body, this would not be how they destroy a 'silent' helicopter.
Ok, so the white house changed the story so many times that we can't believe what they say. Semantics...
This really has nothing to do with not being able to believe what they say. If they were lying, they would have come up with one story and stuck to it. They corrected their facts as they received the updated information. That's a lot more open than they usually are.
but did the basic facts of the SITREP change or was stuff added to it?
How do you know whether something is the truth wherever you get the information from? Whether it's from the White House, the Big Six, or your conspiracy websites, anyone can change a story before they publish it. But nothing about the story stands out as being particularly suspicious. The results of the raid match pretty well with their statements about the early planning and conditions on the ground. There's no glaring flaws to point to and say "that doesn't make sense". There's really no reason at all not to believe this story.
Not only that, but Osama Bin Laden has been dead from two different problems, one he had a disease that was fatal within 4 years back in 2001 and he was doing dialysis which is fatal in the same general time frame. Who knows maybe he had a miracle happen and was magically cured...
Bin Laden was never declared dead before. People speculated, but no one really knew. They mentioned he could have been in one of the many many caves that were collapsed via explosives without being thoroughly searched and no one would be able to know. They thought it was possible that he was doing dialysis, but no one knew for sure. So there's no real "magic" about it, the speculation was simply wrong. It happens.
The Big Six™ are claiming that one of the rotors clipped a building and was damaged and that they then blew up the helicopter. If they were protecting the 'top secret' aircraft, then they would have to blow up the main motor and the tail propeller, that did not happen. It appears some kind of explosive was used on the main body, this would not be how they destroy a 'silent' helicopter.
Because you are the expert on using explosives to destroy something? Look, they even said in their reports that the aircraft were all loaded down heavily, that weight and fuel were calculated down to the last pound, which was part of the trouble since the temperature was hotter than they anticipated during planning. You don't get to bring a lot of extra explosives on a mission like that. It takes a lot to destroy an aircraft until it was unrecognizable. They didn't have that luxury. They had to work with what they had. Among the things to destroy, the rotor ranked pretty low on the scale of importance. More important things include navigation systems, radios, countermeasures, any weapon systems/ammo/ordnance onboard. Basically stuff that was on or in the main body, not the tail.
And what do you mean this would not be how you destroy a helicopter? Do you have a better way that could be done in a field expedient manner? I'd sure like to hear it.
The Big Six™ are claiming that one of the rotors clipped a building and was damaged and that they then blew up the helicopter. If they were protecting the 'top secret' aircraft, then they would have to blow up the main motor and the tail propeller, that did not happen. It appears some kind of explosive was used on the main body, this would not be how they destroy a 'silent' helicopter.
Because you are the expert on using explosives to destroy something? Look, they even said in their reports that the aircraft were all loaded down heavily, that weight and fuel were calculated down to the last pound, which was part of the trouble since the temperature was hotter than they anticipated during planning. You don't get to bring a lot of extra explosives on a mission like that. It takes a lot to destroy an aircraft until it was unrecognizable. They didn't have that luxury. They had to work with what they had. Among the things to destroy, the rotor ranked pretty low on the scale of importance. More important things include navigation systems, radios, countermeasures, any weapon systems/ammo/ordnance onboard. Basically stuff that was on or in the main body, not the tail.
And what do you mean this would not be how you destroy a helicopter? Do you have a better way that could be done in a field expedient manner? I'd sure like to hear it.
The Big Six™ are claiming that one of the rotors clipped a building and was damaged and that they then blew up the helicopter. If they were protecting the 'top secret' aircraft, then they would have to blow up the main motor and the tail propeller, that did not happen. It appears some kind of explosive was used on the main body, this would not be how they destroy a 'silent' helicopter.
Actually, what they "claim" is slightly more involved than that, and is corrorated by the photos.
Tail rotor hits a building, which damages it and causes the chopper to start the autorotation that is counteracted by the tail rotor. Once that starts happening, there is literally NO WAY to keep it in the air so the Army pilot manages a pretty heroic ****ing landing. While landing, the tail hits the wall that the chopper landed next to, which causes it to break off. On the other side of the wall. Before they leave, they blow up the main body, which is in the compound, but they don't have the time/explosives/desire to kill bystanders that would be required to torch the tail, so they are forced to leave it.
If you look at the photos, there are a few that CLEARLY show the tail section against the outside of the wall.
The Big Six™ are claiming that one of the rotors clipped a building and was damaged and that they then blew up the helicopter. If they were protecting the 'top secret' aircraft, then they would have to blow up the main motor and the tail propeller, that did not happen. It appears some kind of explosive was used on the main body, this would not be how they destroy a 'silent' helicopter.
Actually, what they "claim" is slightly more involved than that, and is corrorated by the photos.
Tail rotor hits a building, which damages it and causes the chopper to start the autorotation that is counteracted by the tail rotor. Once that starts happening, there is literally NO WAY to keep it in the air so the Army pilot manages a pretty heroic ****ing landing. While landing, the tail hits the wall that the chopper landed next to, which causes it to break off. On the other side of the wall. Before they leave, they blow up the main body, which is in the compound, but they don't have the time/explosives/desire to kill bystanders that would be required to torch the tail, so they are forced to leave it.
If you look at the photos, there are a few that CLEARLY show the tail section against the outside of the wall.
It doesn't look like the tail section clipped anything. Part of the stealth system would be in the tail propeller so they would want to destroy that part...
It doesn't matter whether or not they wanted to get rid of that section. What matters is whether or not they reasonably could and common sense tells me it was not very practical at the time. Like I said before, there are much higher priorities than the tail section. All that tells someone is that its a new aircraft. Without the rest of it, they are not going to be able to reverse engineer it.
This new could be interesting for you. Isn´t it?
english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/1...
Ex-foreign minister says Libya behind 1989 airline attack
Libya is responsible for a deadly 1989 attack on a French airliner, Libyan former foreign minister Abdel Rahman Shalgam told al-Hayat newspaper in an interview published on Monday.
“The Libyan security services blew up the plane. They believed that opposition leader Mohammed al-Megrief was on board, but after the plane was blown up, it was found that he was not on the plane,” said Mr. Shalgam, who defected from Muammar Qaddafi’s embattled regime earlier this year.
Second, 'terminal' illnesses are overcome all the friggin' time. Look no further than the Lockerbie bomber for a recent, high profile example. So if Binny really was sick (never confirmed or refuted), it's possible he lived a lot longer than he was 'supposed' to. It happens. Every day.
Third, why the hell would Russia agree to a tactical nuke strike against NATO (of which several members have nukes of their own, I believe) for Libya? I mean, do you really think that NATO would just assume Libya insta-made a nuke and a delivery system and fired it from Russia (or from a Russian vessel) for some reason? Would they just ignore the fact that Russia just nuked their military assets and their people? Like, for serious? I mean, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here.
Third, why the hell would Russia agree to a tactical nuke strike against NATO (of which several members have nukes of their own, I believe) for Libya? I mean, do you really think that NATO would just assume Libya insta-made a nuke and a delivery system and fired it from Russia (or from a Russian vessel) for some reason? Would they just ignore the fact that Russia just nuked their military assets and their people? Like, for serious? I mean, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here.
Three NATO states have nukes (France, Britain, US). Germany has some of our nukes. Isreal has nukes (probably), though they certainly won't mind if somebody nukes Libya, Iran, Syria, or Lebanon.
Pakistan and India both have nukes (mostly to aim at each other).
Russia, China, and N. Korea have nukes. Iran and Syria are working on nukes.
If one launches, in all likelihood so do some of the others, then more, then...
Third, why the hell would Russia agree to a tactical nuke strike against NATO (of which several members have nukes of their own, I believe) for Libya? I mean, do you really think that NATO would just assume Libya insta-made a nuke and a delivery system and fired it from Russia (or from a Russian vessel) for some reason? Would they just ignore the fact that Russia just nuked their military assets and their people? Like, for serious? I mean, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here.
Three NATO states have nukes (France, Britain, US). Germany has some of our nukes. Isreal has nukes (probably), though they certainly won't mind if somebody nukes Libya, Iran, Syria, or Lebanon.
Pakistan and India both have nukes (mostly to aim at each other).
Russia, China, and N. Korea have nukes. Iran and Syria are working on nukes.
If one launches, in all likelihood so do some of the others, then more, then...
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation?
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation?
Probably. I remember reading back in the '80s that just between the two "superpowers" (USA & USSR), there were enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet ~400 times.
Exactly. Russia would have to be stupid on an unprecedented level to do something like that. Which is why the 'plan' hurts my brain.
Not to mention, there is precedent for them ignoring stupid requests like this. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Fidel Castro requested that the Soviet Union nuke the US. Obviously, they didn't find this to be a very good idea. And this was for a fellow communist nation that was giving them a potential foothold in the Western Hemisphere where their influence had been limited. I don't see any reason for them to change their minds over Libya, where they have nothing to gain from such an action.
Third, why the hell would Russia agree to a tactical nuke strike against NATO (of which several members have nukes of their own, I believe) for Libya? I mean, do you really think that NATO would just assume Libya insta-made a nuke and a delivery system and fired it from Russia (or from a Russian vessel) for some reason? Would they just ignore the fact that Russia just nuked their military assets and their people? Like, for serious? I mean, that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen posted here.
Three NATO states have nukes (France, Britain, US). Germany has some of our nukes. Isreal has nukes (probably), though they certainly won't mind if somebody nukes Libya, Iran, Syria, or Lebanon.
Pakistan and India both have nukes (mostly to aim at each other).
Russia, China, and N. Korea have nukes. Iran and Syria are working on nukes.
If one launches, in all likelihood so do some of the others, then more, then...
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation?
That doesn't sound plausible, especially if they were all aimed to one area.
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation?
Probably. I remember reading back in the '80s that just between the two "superpowers" (USA & USSR), there were enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet ~400 times.
With thousands on each side, yeah. With 10? Highly unlikely.
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation?
Probably. I remember reading back in the '80s that just between the two "superpowers" (USA & USSR), there were enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet ~400 times.
Those estimates are usually off. It's like saying a gallon of VX can kill a million people. Well technically if it only takes a drop to kill and you have a million drops in that gallon, sure. But in the real world it doesn't happen that way. The entire gallon doesn't get disseminated (some stays inside the container, or if done explosively gets consumed in the explosion). From what does, some ends up on inanimate objects. The people that do get exposed usually get exposed to much more than that single drop, thus reducing the efficiency. Basically, those estimates assume maximum casualties under situations that simply would not occur in the real world. Same with nukes.
EDIT: Basically those statistics are used either to calculate worst case scenarios for government response, or more often for the purpose of fearmongering.
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation
if that were true, Japan (much much less then 1/10th of the world) would be unlivable after Hiroshima AND nagasaki (2 nukes!)
Wasn't there an estimate that if 10 nukes were launched within a few minutes of each other that the world would be unlivable because of the radiation
if that were true, Japan (much much less then 1/10th of the world) would be unlivable after Hiroshima AND nagasaki (2 nukes!)
Your math is off. 2 nukes should be able to take out 1/5 of the world ;)
EDIT: Basically those statistics are used either to calculate worst case scenarios for government response, or more often for the purpose of fearmongering.
Like I said, it was during the 80's. We were in danger of winning the Cold War, therefore we needed to sign more non-proliferation treaties!