I mean, do you want to have a discussion or side track on why I can’t check article now?
New science thread
You are still proving that you are not working and keep wasting your time. It’s been 5 minutes and you would reach very much of it :D even if I am easy to understand, your repetitive replies are proving how bad at lying you are. The fact that you wanna have even discussion about that would waste you more time than reading the article LOL, how dumb you are for real.
Where does it say that Pakistan had nuclear weapons before Khan?
Are you kidding me?
I read the article you sent and it doesn’t say that. It says they had nuclear program, but no bomb. Khan was instrumental in helping build bomb my stealing blueprints for centrifuge to enough uranium for weapons grade. Regulations failed
With words it doesn’t, but bombs were being made before him by President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. LOL
Also he did not steal blueprints by breaking regulations, he simply used recipe from other countries. That is regulation success. And every country in the world that created nuclear bomb in your logic broke certain regulation for it’s own interest. So in your logic in reality regulations do not exist (IN YOUR LOGIC), while it’s all regulated.
If it doesn’t say it, they they didn’t nuclear weapons. Other weapons perhaps, but not nuclear
Yes they had. It doesn’t say that with words, but with good comprehension skills it’s obvious that they had nukes before him, he only modernized them. Also he was allowed to use blueprints.
That’s not how facts work in real life. Either it is says or it is not. President ordered to build the bomb, but it was not achieved until Khan stole blueprints for centrifuges.
He did not stole blueprints. Also Pakistan is member of Geneva Convention, therefore by the entire core nuclear bombs are regulated. And it’s not true in the words ‘‘either says it or not’’, you are dumbing down inside your own logic. Since indirectly it implies that they made it. Before he PURCHASED blueprints.
Say in article you provide that he stole. Does not say that they had nuclear weapons before that. Evidence not accepted
BOUGHT* as for evidence, I know you don’t accept evidences, only lies. No shit? Speaking of stealing USA also broke regulations since they stole blueprints from Nazi Germany and gave it to Oppenheimer and developed Project Manhattan, so USA does not have it regulated huh?
They bought components, but blueprints were stolen. Classified government information is not for sale to civilians. Evidence to accepted.
Don’t change subject to USA, but even so it’s an example of regulations failure.
Blueprints were not stolen and it’s not even related with regulation. It was also classified government information of Germany with building nuclear bomb and it also wasn’t for sale. So evidence is evidence whether you accept it or not. And I didn’t change the subject to USA, I simply pointed out how your hypocrisy makes 0 sense when it comes to topic of ‘‘regulation’’, since every country in the world in that logic broke your fictional ‘‘regulations’’. They don’t use bombs and are part of Geneva convention, therefore it’s regulated. Just cope that you are once again talking bs.
1 tiny screenshot compared to my full historical factual documents and informations, yet you have audacity how I should post actual concrete evidence, while you spliced your tiny screenshot in half LOL.
You are irrelevant as your bogus claims and childish interpretation of what regulation means. You refuse facts and resolve in once again childish mini screenshots based on half truths. Also it’s not even American journal, even very title in front of your own eyes was ignored.
USA stole entire Nuclear Weapons project LOL, not just blueprints (IT’S NOT CHANGING THE SUBJECT, BUT POINTING OF YOU BEING FULL OF SHIT AND HYPOCRITICAL SCUM AS YOU ARE), therefore nothing was regulated, since design was based on theft.
There’s a limit in file size so its tedious to put up more. It’s a 7-10 page article. It’s not size that matters but facts. Your own sauces disagree with the point you make.
All in all, we disagree on what regulations means. I can see your side of it and even allowing every country to have nukes could be good as a prevention to war. So it’s not without merit. It made for a good discussion.
Facts are what matters, but according to your comments 1 month ago or even more about covid, you were singing different plot. Which also indicates exposing yourself as hypocrite. Since nothing in your tiny screenshot is based on facts and it also concludes that it is not related with regulation failures. Since USA (NOT CHANGING SUBJECTS IF YOU AIM FOR THAT) did far worse and far more regulation breaking. In fact my own sources agree with my point I make and disagree with your own point. Also we do not disagree on regulations, since there is fact and there is bias. What you say is bias and not allowing certain country to have nuclear weapons is not related nor will ever be related with term regulation and regulation in general. That also includes prevention of war. In fact countries have nukes is best thing for prevention of war, since it creates balance of powers and therefore one country cannot dominate another. So it is without merit. Also it’s not even made for discussion, you just desperately want it to be made for it.
In your dogmatic and hyperbolic logic in reality of the planet in each country in the world that has nuclear bombs and your own terminology (YOURS, not UN) there is no such thing as regulations. Even though there is, but not in your fantasy mind of rainbow planet filled with gender pronoun mutilated genitals people.
Your own desperation trying to be right is so hopeless and comedic that you are self-owning yourself pretty much every day you post. That includes false riddles that almost have absolutely no logical or relevant meaning. Which are even worse than 5 year old toddler drawing the kindergarden paper. Your own adult mind (if you are) is delusional and on the completely same level as that of a toddler. But anyways, DEAL WITH THE PROGRESS.
Don’t you got anything better to do?