Hillary's looking better everyday!!!
Bush is an idiot!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_weapons
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_nuclear_weapons
0
-
Hhhhhhhmmmmmmm idiot or Communist. Not a hard choice for me. 0 -
Bad mistake, I hope Congress can or will stop this ignorant plan.[V] 0 -
I would think that we still have more than enough nukes to get the job done. Sounds more to me like international diplomacy, than an actual shortage of weapons. I doubt the President is really trying to disarm our nuclear arsenal. 0 -
Brain pool is massive 
0 -
The term "safe nuclear warhead" is difficult for me to get my hands around.
Doug0 -
He is not an idiot for taking the a chance to look good on a Global issue as sensitive as Nuclear Armament. This shows how intelligent and informed you are. The nuclear warheads that are going to be "reduced" in this "reduction" are already scheduled to be dismanteled anyway. Nuclear weapons can not just sit around forever even if they are not planned to be used due to nuclear decay. The longer the weapon is around the more unstable it components become and less effective it becomes. The majority of the weapons that are going to be disposed of have been around since the 50s and are either unsafe or not up to par with their original yield ratings. And I'm sorry but we don't need more than 1200 nuclear weapons anyway, what is the point! If even one country was to deploy even a 3rd of that the world would be uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. Bush is just getting some PR off of it not reducing our defense capabilities. And Hillary looking better! You ought to be smacked for that. She wants to decrease our military strength to have more money to spend on herself, and this is a good thing in your view I guess. Go ahead, vote for her, and when she does a BS military reduction and we end up invaded by some third would under supplied military you will be singing a different tune. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jtmarine0831
He is not an idiot for taking the a chance to look good on a Global issue as sensitive as Nuclear Armament. This shows how intelligent and informed you are. The nuclear warheads that are going to be "reduced" in this "reduction" are already scheduled to be dismanteled anyway. Nuclear weapons can not just sit around forever even if they are not planned to be used due to nuclear decay. The longer the weapon is around the more unstable it components become and less effective it becomes. The majority of the weapons that are going to be disposed of have been around since the 50s and are either unsafe or not up to par with their original yield ratings. And I'm sorry but we don't need more than 1200 nuclear weapons anyway, what is the point! If even one country was to deploy even a 3rd of that the world would be uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. Bush is just getting some PR off of it not reducing our defense capabilities. And Hillary looking better! You ought to be smacked for that. She wants to decrease our military strength to have more money to spend on herself, and this is a good thing in your view I guess. Go ahead, vote for her, and when she does a BS military reduction and we end up invaded by some third would under supplied military you will be singing a different tune.
Dude, go to Walmart on Sunday nite... We've already been invaded by several third world countries!!!0 -
Rather infantile, wouldn't you say?0
-
Old nukes are old nukes. We need new modernized ones. Destory the old ones. With the new threat soon to appear and it already has begun, we will have produce the new and better ones. The old nukes are really not very effecient and are easily netralized. And for those who don't know, half (if not a little more) will not go bang when they are supposed to. That is the real reason we have so many. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
quote:Originally posted by jtmarine0831
He is not an idiot for taking the a chance to look good on a Global issue as sensitive as Nuclear Armament. This shows how intelligent and informed you are. The nuclear warheads that are going to be "reduced" in this "reduction" are already scheduled to be dismanteled anyway. Nuclear weapons can not just sit around forever even if they are not planned to be used due to nuclear decay. The longer the weapon is around the more unstable it components become and less effective it becomes. The majority of the weapons that are going to be disposed of have been around since the 50s and are either unsafe or not up to par with their original yield ratings. And I'm sorry but we don't need more than 1200 nuclear weapons anyway, what is the point! If even one country was to deploy even a 3rd of that the world would be uninhabitable for hundreds of thousands of years. Bush is just getting some PR off of it not reducing our defense capabilities. And Hillary looking better! You ought to be smacked for that. She wants to decrease our military strength to have more money to spend on herself, and this is a good thing in your view I guess. Go ahead, vote for her, and when she does a BS military reduction and we end up invaded by some third would under supplied military you will be singing a different tune.
Dude, go to Walmart on Sunday nite... We've already been invaded by several third world countries!!!
I understand what you are saying about Wal-mart on Sunday nights. Fortunately we don't have that issue here where I live. The people and business around here won't stand for it. But that is not what I meant.
I could see your point of view if it would have been refering to the reduction of missle defense systems or such, but nuclear weapons have no real or beneficial use, so what does it matter if most of them are disposed of. That is just fewer that we have worry about making their way to the underground"EBAY" if you will and in the hands of some brainwashed Jihad soldier. The days of deterrence are over, they are just a security risk nowdays.
Does this explain where I'm coming from a little better?
And the "And Hillary looking better! You ought to be smacked for that" comment, I was trying to include a pic of her that I found the other day but couldn't find it. It was just some sarcasim, no offense meant by the smaking! [:D][:D]
OH, OH, here it is!0 -
No beneficail use... a couple well placed nukes ended WWII, and I mean right freaking now!!! I really don't approve of nukes either, but they'll do until we get one of those Doomsday thingys like they had on Star Trek!!! 0 -
[img][/img] Hillary Looks like a Horse butt to me, Bush looks and acts like a Brain surgeon Compared to Hillary0 -
Socialism can be "Our salvation" if we want it. Work for it and our dreams will come true!
[:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
No beneficail use... a couple well placed nukes ended WWII, and I mean right freaking now!!! I really don't approve of nukes either, but they'll do until we get one of those Doomsday thingys like they had on Star Trek!!!
Yeah, that would be nice!
The nukes we have stockpiled now are farmore destructive than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes they did help end the war "right freaking now" but to this day there is still severe damage and sideeffects due to the radioactive contamination, where is the benefit in that. With the nukes we have today ready to launch, you are not talking fallout in the next town like the WWII bombs, you are talking fallout all the way back here from Moscow, 500ft deep crater worth of dirt atomized and set to the wind through the upper atmosphere to redistribute itself all around the world for years to come, from one bomb. We would just be hurting our own country in the long run.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fshfndr
[img][/img]Hillary Looks like a Horse butt to me, Bush looks and acts like a Brain surgeon Compared to Hillary
Oh that is so frickin funny![:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]0 -
With a long term program of therapy and intensive remedial learning, you may yet be able to acquire a sufficient level of mental competence and general life-skills to attempt to select a radio program more to your likeing ALL BY YOURSELF. Meanwhile, you'll have to ask your guardian/facilitator to assist you when you have a crisis. Try to remain calm and avoid thrashing and throwing yourself about. It's only a radio program, after all, and Mr. Limbaugh cannot hurt you, nor would he if he could. [}:)]0
-
Don't forget about our trident submarines.[:p] 0 -
quote:
We would just be hurting our own country in the long run.
Not nearly as badly as it will hurt if the other guys set one off in Gotham City! Which BTW seems to be the main goal of a few dictators around the globe!!! I reckon you and Larry, Curly and Moe can throw pies at them or something!0 -
[img][/img] 0 -
We've still got enough nukes to destroy the world two times over. 0 -
[;)] Chesterfield Kings. Mild, yet satisfying. Sooth your "Y" zone with satifying Chesterfield Kings today! 0 -
Once China gets to the moon and builds a rail gun to launch a few at us... I'd sure like to know that they ain't gonna have a home to come home to! I doubt that they are planning to go there to play golf like we did!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
quote:
We would just be hurting our own country in the long run.
Not nearly as badly as it will hurt if the other guys set one off in Gotham City! Which BTW seems to be the main goal of a few dictators around the globe!!! I reckon you and Larry, Curly and Moe can throw pies at them or something!
Gotham City!! They better watch out for BatMan!!
Yes I know there are a few dictators that want to discharge a nuke on OUR soil, but answer me this! What DEFENSIVE purpose is a nuclear bomb going to do to prevent this if they get the chance! Here is a senerio that I see happening if we use nuclear weapons in a defensive measure.
"Some towelhead group nukes a US city, we retaliate and nuke Iran, Russian early warning nets detect our inbound missle before they detonate, and with out knowledge that it is bound for Iran triggers a counter-offensive against the United States, the same with China and North Korea, our early warning systems pickup th incoming Russian/Chinese/Korean missles and retaliates in the same measure, and does a complete inventory launch. THere you go, all that is left is a charred rock floating in space."
Those damn Islamist are going to try to drop a bomb on us regardless if we have a nuke or not.
So in a sense, having nukes is the same as throwing pies, it's not going to stop the other guy from doing it first, just make a big mess!0 -
Im not saying there is NO use for nukes, just there is no LOGICAL or BENEFICIAL use for having 6,000 nukes. We already have the capability and weapons to produce to destruction of a lower yield nuke with out the radioactive colateral. So what is the purpose of having 6,000? That is what I'm trying to understand here. 0 -
Well it would seem that we have chosen (against my will) to let another (probably much worse) 9-11 occur. And when it does I will only be pacified when the entire Middle East is converted to a bubbling glow in the dark molten mass!!! 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
Well it would seem that we have chosen (against my will) to let another (probably much worse) 9-11 occur. And when it does I will only be pacified when the entire Middle East is converted to a bubbling glow in the dark molten mass!!!
It is more of a green glass than a dark molten mass!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite0 -
quote:Originally posted by tobefree
Well it would seem that we have chosen (against my will) to let another (probably much worse) 9-11 occur. And when it does I will only be pacified when the entire Middle East is converted to a bubbling glow in the dark molten mass!!!
Hey, it's not my fault they won't let us kick Irans A$$!0 -
Doesn't matter. As long as we maintain our SSBN/SSGN fleet at sea. Joe 0 -
quote:Originally posted by givette
Doesn't matter. As long as we maintain our SSBN/SSGN fleet at sea. Joe
Here we go again!
" Command, we have a terrorist driving down 138th Street with nuclear weapon, USS Alabama you have permission to fire one BGM-109A with W80 payload on target" "Command, confirm nuclear detonation on target, Alabama confirm, nuclear detonation on target with nuclear weapon, success 100 over 100"
Come on guys, we have had all these nukes since the late 1940s and they didn't stop some terrorists from climbing in some planes and killing thousands of innocent people, they didn't stop Saddam from murdering millions of people, and so on.
They have NO defensive or LOGICAL use except for deterance and that isn't even working anymore.
Yes we can use them in retaliation but what does that get us, a smoldering rock called Earth.
I am all about blowing doodoo up, but nukes spell ARMAGEDDON!!
Here is the way to go if you want mass destruction with extreme prejudice.
Alternatives to nukes!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jh-l1mr2h98&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7tG7keSe-0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aBfOOo-n5k&feature=related
Man portable goodies!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm0azEG0CPY&feature=related0 -
Again, doesn't matter. Dismantle them all. As long as we maintain our nukes at sea.
If we should get rid of all the land-based nukes, that's OK with me. The global intel network is our best deterrent against a terror application of nuclear devices. Just don't mess with the fleet. It's our ace in the hole. Joe
PS..the only thing the US can sucessfully accomplish is unilateral arms reduction. We need all nuke powers to sign-off on disarmament, if we were to truly be free of the nuclear threat. Think that will happen?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
32 comments