The official stance of the US is we do not develop and will not use biological or chemical weapons.
The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly exagerated.
1 - the official stance of the us is to not develop biological weapons but continue research on biological weapons on a defensive view. Same to me, but it's a matter of opinion
2 - Hiroshima at the end of the year 1945 counted 140000 (edit : civilian) deaths directly linked to the bomb (immediate deaths or very high levels of radiations leading to deaths in under 4 monts). How can 140 000 deaths be a "greatly exagerated" effect?? Todays bombs are much more powerful than in 1945, how is this exagerated?
1 - the official stance of the us is to not develop biological weapons but continue research on biological weapons on a defensive view. Same to me, but it's a matter of opinion
It is not a matter of opinion. There is a difference between developing small amounts of biological agents for research and turning agents into weapons.
The stance is also that we will never use biological or chemical agents.
2 - Hiroshima at the end of the year 1945 counted 140000 (edit : civilian) deaths directly linked to the bomb (immediate deaths or very high levels of radiations leading to deaths in under 4 monts). How can 140 000 deaths be a "greatly exagerated" effect?? Todays bombs are much more powerful than in 1945, how is this exagerated?
All of those people were in the blast area or very close downwind. There are not enough weapons to cover the earth in blast area. There fore not enough to kill every one. There would not be any nuclear winter. No mass radiation contamination.
Some of todays bombs are more power full some are not. Todays bombs leave less fallout.
No i don't understand, you're using the 2 great wars that happened 80 and 70 yrs ago to justify a military in todays World, it has no relevance because the rest of the civilised World, barring Britain, has moved on and learned the lessons.
You cannot be serious. Do you know history at all. I used those 2 wars because they are more recent and familiar to show how the US Army has been unprepared because people felt the last war was the last one we would ever be in.
More than 20 million allied soldiers died in ww2 alone, so unless you are suggesting that a military in excess of this number is necessary then no, i don't understand.
I am suggesting we maintain a strong well funded military that is always looking for better weapons.
Professional militaries have not fought the major wars, people stand up when need be.
The major threat that is antagonising people now is america. That is the next fight for the world, you want to hear that? you have few friends left and we don't like you that much.
Of course America is the bad guy.
Apart from america, there is China which has a billion people and has never looked far beyond its own borders to cause trouble, barring some horrendous
civil rights (in excess of 1 Billion people remember, not all going to be good) is a very wise place. Russia, well we'll see, we'll deal if we need to. A handful of radical countries that are riled at this point mainly by american arrogance, again if we have to fight them so be it.
Oh and of course i wouldnt want to leave out the Mexican drug lords that have been mentioned previously here, they reportedly have machine guns, maybe 2 each.
How many times do I have to say this. Yes there is no current threat(except islamic fascist) to the US. But things change. The military should be ready for a possible threat 10 to 15 years from now.
I don't believe for one minute that the us government is stupid enough to think that its actions are going to bring positivity to the World so, yes I believe there are other reasons, but i don't necessarily think they are all fat.
yes i am retarded if that means that i believe war serves normal people no benefit and therefore there are other reasons that are neither transparent nor benign.
So the slaves, jews, muslims getting slaughtered by slobadon milsovich, did not do not benefit from war. They were better off before some one strong enough to fight for them did just that.
War is inevitable, while there are people fearful enough to believe that its inevitable because of others and not themselves.
War is inevitable because of you.
Because I believe in defending my self and country war is inevitable. I guess you are right in a sense. If no one fought back there would be no war. I know you are going to twist this around.
wrong about the nukes? enlighten me some more?
There are not enough nukes to kill humankind off. Not even close.
No, I'm not going to twist anything around, we live in different Worlds. You deal with your paranoia, I'll deal with what i have to when i have to.
By the by, i'm not against war per se, i served in my army because the ultimate sport turns me on a little, my skills and drills against your skills and drills, winner really does win. However, this takes courage, building militaries that destroy the worlds of peaceful people takes none and are usually designed by people that never have, or ever will even think, of putting themselves on the front line.
No, I'm not going to twist anything around, we live in different Worlds. You deal with your paranoia, I'll deal with what i have to when i have to.
By the by, i'm not against war per se, i served in my army because the ultimate sport turns me on a little, my skills and drills against your skills and drills, winner really does win. However, this takes courage, building militaries that destroy the worlds of peaceful people takes none and are usually designed by people that never have, or ever will even think, of putting themselves on the front line.
Ok. I'm not for war per se. I just believe in being prepared for the worst. I don't think that wanting a strong military means you want war and like to destroy stuff just for fun or profit.
All you pacifistic euro-liberal types need to remember one thing: When aliens invade this planet and try to suck all of our blood, who are you going to call to save your asses?
All you pacifistic euro-liberal types need to remember one thing: When aliens invade this planet and try to suck all of our blood, who are you going to call to save your asses?
All of those people were in the blast area or very close downwind. There are not enough weapons to cover the earth in blast area. There fore not enough to kill every one. There would not be any nuclear winter. No mass radiation contamination.
Some of todays bombs are more power full some are not. Todays bombs leave less fallout.
I wonder who to believe. 49,000 researches from over a 190 countries (that what the AGU consists of)...or you.
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [2]
Okay, well 50 "fat boys" could fuck us up pretty bad. well good thing we don't have that number. Wha...oh shit. I just found this.
There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that almost resulted in the U.S. or USSR/Russia launching its weapons in retaliation for a supposed attack.[5] Additionally, during the Cold War the U.S. and USSR came close to nuclear warfare several times, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As of 2006, there are estimated to be at least 27,000 nuclear weapons held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia.
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [2]
The excerpt says the study was presented at the meeting. It does not say they all agree on its results.
The nuclear winter idea has be prover wrong. I didn't just come up with this.
Okay, well 50 "fat boys" could fuck us up pretty bad. well good thing we don't have that number. Wha...oh shit. I just found this.
Wow. Become more informed before you post. The first 2 bombs were called "Little Boy", and "Fat Man".
Little Boy's blast was estimated between 12-15 kilotons.
Fat Man's blast was estimated to be around 21 kilotons.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was done by the Russians. They claimed it was a 100 megaton blast. Most believe it was only a 50 megaton blast.
Lets do some math. If a kiloton = 1000 tons of TNT the total yield of 50 (lets go with "Fat Man" he was bigger) Fat Man's that could fuck us up pretty bad would be 50*21= 1000 kilotons or 1 mega ton.
Lets take that 1 mega ton and times it buy 50 to equal Russia's bomb.
1000kilotons*50 = 50000 kilotons or 50 megatons. I wonder how many Fat Mans would it take to equal the Russia bomb and see if it is more then the 50 that would fuck us up pretty bad.
50000 kilotons/21 kilotons = 2381..... oh shit thats a little more than 50 Where is this cooling that is suposed to take place. If only it only take 50 to cause as much as the artical leads you to believe we should be really fucked.
Not to mention all of the nuclear test blasts the US, Russia, and France. Have done.
If the 50 Fat Mans were droped on population centers the death toll from the blast would be very high but there would be no nuclear winter. There would be no mass continental radiation contamination.
I am not saying all to to be like pro nuclear weapons and nuclear war I am doing it because there are a lot of myths about nuclear weapons and to be an asshole a little.
Just because they are scary does not mean you should not know more about them and there effects.
Ok. I'm not for war per se. I just believe in being prepared for the worst. I don't think that wanting a strong military means you want war and like to destroy stuff just for fun or profit.
thank you. this is all thats need to be said in this entire thread.
America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother f-ing day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow
FUCK YEAH!
McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH! Slavery, FUCK YEAH!
thank you. this is all thats need to be said in this entire thread.
I think that the point of the thread is that there are more important things to spend money on rather than defense. You even said yourself that the US overspends on aggression (I refuse to call it defense these days). There is nothing wrong with having a strong military. There is something inherently wrong when that stong military is abused and used to as a tool to enforce fucked up foreign policy all over the world.
1/12/1879, 4/8/1156, 2/6/1977, who gives a shit, ...
Question: Lets say that the United States never spent any money on its military. Are there still wars going on? Is there still genocide in Darfur? Is Saddam still killing his people? Is Iran still looking to get a nuclear weapon? Does Israel even exist anymore?
Fuckers, get off your high horses and stop blaming the U.S. for the problems of the world that will always exist. A lot of you act like the Iraq war is the first ever war. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. There are people around the world (like in Iraq and Darfur) who have to live it every day while you sob's whine with your high-speed internet connections downloading the latest movie because you feel entitled to everything.
Question: Lets say that the United States never spent any money on its military. Are there still wars going on? Is there still genocide in Darfur? Is Saddam still killing his people? Is Iran still looking to get a nuclear weapon? Does Israel even exist anymore?
Fuckers, get off your high horses and stop blaming the U.S. for the problems of the world that will always exist. A lot of you act like the Iraq war is the first ever war. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. There are people around the world (like in Iraq and Darfur) who have to live it every day while you sob's whine with your high-speed internet connections downloading the latest movie because you feel entitled to everything.
So because there is warring and killing going on...we need to contribute to it, as well?
If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Question: Lets say that the United States never spent any money on its military. Are there still wars going on? Is there still genocide in Darfur? Is Saddam still killing his people? Is Iran still looking to get a nuclear weapon? Does Israel even exist anymore?
Fuckers, get off your high horses and stop blaming the U.S. for the problems of the world that will always exist. A lot of you act like the Iraq war is the first ever war. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. There are people around the world (like in Iraq and Darfur) who have to live it every day while you sob's whine with your high-speed internet connections downloading the latest movie because you feel entitled to everything.
all i feel entitled to is to live. all anyone should be entitled to is to live free. regardless of who they are or where they live, what religion they practise or whether they are female or male.
i fell off my high horse in the 80s.
all i can say is that if the US never spent money on its military, the world would be a very different palce indeed. they've done good and they've done stuff as a country they should be ashamed of. but i also imagine any other country in the same position would more than likely have made the same mistakes. the US didn't invent military and economic imperialism but they sure as hell learnt the lessons well.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
The excerpt says the study was presented at the meeting. It does not say they all agree on its results.
The nuclear winter idea has be prover wrong. I didn't just come up with this.
Wow. Become more informed before you post. The first 2 bombs were called "Little Boy", and "Fat Man".
Little Boy's blast was estimated between 12-15 kilotons.
Fat Man's blast was estimated to be around 21 kilotons.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was done by the Russians. They claimed it was a 100 megaton blast. Most believe it was only a 50 megaton blast.
Lets do some math. If a kiloton = 1000 tons of TNT the total yield of 50 (lets go with "Fat Man" he was bigger) Fat Man's that could fuck us up pretty bad would be 50*21= 1000 kilotons or 1 mega ton.
Lets take that 1 mega ton and times it buy 50 to equal Russia's bomb.
1000kilotons*50 = 50000 kilotons or 50 megatons. I wonder how many Fat Mans would it take to equal the Russia bomb and see if it is more then the 50 that would fuck us up pretty bad.
50000 kilotons/21 kilotons = 2381..... oh shit thats a little more than 50 Where is this cooling that is suposed to take place. If only it only take 50 to cause as much as the artical leads you to believe we should be really fucked.
Not to mention all of the nuclear test blasts the US, Russia, and France. Have done.
If the 50 Fat Mans were droped on population centers the death toll from the blast would be very high but there would be no nuclear winter. There would be no mass continental radiation contamination.
I am not saying all to to be like pro nuclear weapons and nuclear war I am doing it because there are a lot of myths about nuclear weapons and to be an asshole a little.
Just because they are scary does not mean you should not know more about them and there effects.
I know the names of the bombs dropped on japan. It was a play on words.
A bomb set off here and there for testing will, more than likely, not have any major effect on the world as we know it. A nuclear war, fought between powers with a arsenal of several hundred, if not thousand of nukes will have disastrous results for both regions and it's population. I never said there shouldn't be any nuclear weapons at all. Mostly because I don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not nuking japan was necessary. I do think tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are completely unnecessary and could (notice I'm changing my stance. I'm not back pedaling like a politician.) push mankind to the brink of extinction if a worst case scenario took place.
I know the names of the bombs dropped on japan. It was a play on words.
A bomb set off here and there for testing will, more than likely, not have any major effect on the world as we know it. A nuclear war, fought between powers with a arsenal of several hundred, if not thousand of nukes will have disastrous results for both regions and it's population. I never said there shouldn't be any nuclear weapons at all. Mostly because I don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not nuking japan was necessary. I do think tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are completely unnecessary and could (notice I'm changing my stance. I'm not back pedaling like a politician.) push mankind to the brink of extinction if a worst case scenario took place.
I agree there is probably an excessive amount of Nuclear weapons. A full scale war would be disastrous, in loss of life and economically. But it would not bring human kind any-where close to extinction.
The U.S. has the biggest baddest military ever, fuck yeah!
who would you rather give the #1 seat up to?
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
I agree there is probably an excessive amount of Nuclear weapons.
that word in bold says it all. you have to be absolutely insane to doubt for one second there is way too many nuclear weapons on this planet in the control of humans.
probably? give me a break. dont be afraid challenge yoursefl or your beliefs.
there is, without doubt, way too many nuclear weapons.
game of beach cricket followed by a bbq and a few icy beers and she'll be right mate. not a shot fired in anger.
Trust me, I'd trust my faith in Howard over Bush anyday skip the cricket and how about a game of bocce?
AND...this is an important point, don't mistake grilling for BBQ
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
LMAO!!! i have minus zero faith in john howard.
and no way! i can play cricket, can't go the bocce. i'll bowl slow for you.
and what exactly is the difference between grilling and bbq?
grilling is slopping burgers etc on the grill....
BBQ is slow cooking meat for 10 to 14 hours at loooooooowww temperatures...so the meat falls off the bone....don't get me started!
i never played cricket, but it's similar to baseball, right?
bocce is the ultimate...finese, skill, strategery...it's all there.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
BBQ is slow cooking meat for 10 to 14 hours at loooooooowww temperatures...so the meat falls off the bone....don't get me started!
i never played cricket, but it's similar to baseball, right?
bocce is the ultimate...finese, skill, strategery...it's all there.
we use the term bbq for anything cooked on the grill. be it slow cooked or a nice piece of whatever meat you fancy. in my entire life ive never had a burger cooked on a grill/bbq.
no hawk, cricket is not similiar to baseball, though both are ballgames. it also requires finesse, strategy and skill. also the ability to not fall asleep when fielding out near the boundary.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
we use the term bbq for anything cooked on the grill. be it slow cooked or a nice piece of whatever meat you fancy. in my entire life ive never had a burger cooked on a grill/bbq.
no hawk, cricket is not similiar to baseball, though both are ballgames. it also requires finesse, strategy and skill. also the ability to not fall asleep when fielding out near the boundary.
grilling burgers is not BBQ'ing...slow cooking pork, brisket...BBQing is all about slooooooow cooking...tender, and juicy meat....unfortunately, you can only bet REAL BBQ in the red states
i think cricket is similar to baseball, isn't there a pitcher, adn a batter? and bases?
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
grilling burgers is not BBQ'ing...slow cooking pork, brisket...BBQing is all about slooooooow cooking...tender, and juicy meat....unfortunately, you can only bet REAL BBQ in the red states
i think cricket is similar to baseball, isn't there a pitcher, adn a batter? and bases?
cricket is not similar to baseball. trust me on this. in cricket there is a bowler, a wicketkeeper, 9 other fielders and 2 batsmen from the opposing team. a successful hit of a delivery(pitch if you will) can result in anywhere between 1 and 6 runs. even more if there is an misfield or overthrow. the batsmen, one on strike, the other not stand at opposite ends of a pitch. and run when the opportunity arises between what is termed wickets. there is no 3 strikes and youre out. you must get 10 players out before you get to bat. the 11th player is not out but can not continue without a batting partner, so he retires not out.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I agree that it's ridiculous to have all these nukes, but I thought this thread was about the military in general. I don't necessarily think of nukes when I think of our military. It seems to me like the only people who think about our nukes are the people who wish they had them or can't wait to use them.
Example is Ahmedinejad. He once said something about how Bush's ego emanates through his nuclear arsenal. Bush might be a bit of a war-monger, but since when has he even given a fuck about nukes?
The prime minister of France once said that he would nuke any country that sponsored a terrorist attack against French soil. Where's the hate for the prime minister of France? It's a double-standard.
When I think of the might of the US military, I think of smart bombs and navy seals. I don't see anything wrong with having either of those.
I agree there is probably an excessive amount of Nuclear weapons. A full scale war would be disastrous, in loss of life and economically. But it would not bring human kind any-where close to extinction.
This is a ridiculous discussion. First of all you will not find anywhere on this planet a serious person able to tell you, for sure, what could happen to the world on a full scale nuclear world. Because, as humans, we're used to building stuff that have unknown consequences to us, consequences we can only imagine and debate on forums.
Second, the problem is not even to bring the human kind to extinction, it's the capacity of doing 10,000 times what happened in Japan : killing civilians to stop a war?? I don't want to fight over if it was legitimate, but the nuclear bomb (along with any weapon targeting civilians) is a shitty idea. It's too late now so I understand that each country needs to have some, but that many bombs? It's too bad the reduction in nuclear weapons just got out of style and is not talked about anymore today.
Comments
1 - the official stance of the us is to not develop biological weapons but continue research on biological weapons on a defensive view. Same to me, but it's a matter of opinion
2 - Hiroshima at the end of the year 1945 counted 140000 (edit : civilian) deaths directly linked to the bomb (immediate deaths or very high levels of radiations leading to deaths in under 4 monts). How can 140 000 deaths be a "greatly exagerated" effect?? Todays bombs are much more powerful than in 1945, how is this exagerated?
It is not a matter of opinion. There is a difference between developing small amounts of biological agents for research and turning agents into weapons.
The stance is also that we will never use biological or chemical agents.
All of those people were in the blast area or very close downwind. There are not enough weapons to cover the earth in blast area. There fore not enough to kill every one. There would not be any nuclear winter. No mass radiation contamination.
Some of todays bombs are more power full some are not. Todays bombs leave less fallout.
You cannot be serious. Do you know history at all. I used those 2 wars because they are more recent and familiar to show how the US Army has been unprepared because people felt the last war was the last one we would ever be in.
I am suggesting we maintain a strong well funded military that is always looking for better weapons.
Of course America is the bad guy.
How many times do I have to say this. Yes there is no current threat(except islamic fascist) to the US. But things change. The military should be ready for a possible threat 10 to 15 years from now.
So the slaves, jews, muslims getting slaughtered by slobadon milsovich, did not do not benefit from war. They were better off before some one strong enough to fight for them did just that.
Because I believe in defending my self and country war is inevitable. I guess you are right in a sense. If no one fought back there would be no war. I know you are going to twist this around.
There are not enough nukes to kill humankind off. Not even close.
No, I'm not going to twist anything around, we live in different Worlds. You deal with your paranoia, I'll deal with what i have to when i have to.
By the by, i'm not against war per se, i served in my army because the ultimate sport turns me on a little, my skills and drills against your skills and drills, winner really does win. However, this takes courage, building militaries that destroy the worlds of peaceful people takes none and are usually designed by people that never have, or ever will even think, of putting themselves on the front line.
Ok. I'm not for war per se. I just believe in being prepared for the worst. I don't think that wanting a strong military means you want war and like to destroy stuff just for fun or profit.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
Will Smith?
naděje umírá poslední
Tommy Lee Jones, too.
And, maybe, Silent Bob.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
I wonder who to believe. 49,000 researches from over a 190 countries (that what the AGU consists of)...or you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare#current_concerns
Potential consequences of a regional nuclear war
A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 asserted that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. Also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years and could be "catastrophic" according to the researchers. [2]
Okay, well 50 "fat boys" could fuck us up pretty bad. well good thing we don't have that number. Wha...oh shit. I just found this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arsenal
There have been (at least) four major false alarms, the most recent in 1995, that almost resulted in the U.S. or USSR/Russia launching its weapons in retaliation for a supposed attack.[5] Additionally, during the Cold War the U.S. and USSR came close to nuclear warfare several times, most notably during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As of 2006, there are estimated to be at least 27,000 nuclear weapons held by at least eight countries, 96 percent of them in the possession of the United States and Russia.
The excerpt says the study was presented at the meeting. It does not say they all agree on its results.
The nuclear winter idea has be prover wrong. I didn't just come up with this.
Wow. Become more informed before you post. The first 2 bombs were called "Little Boy", and "Fat Man".
Little Boy's blast was estimated between 12-15 kilotons.
Fat Man's blast was estimated to be around 21 kilotons.
The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was done by the Russians. They claimed it was a 100 megaton blast. Most believe it was only a 50 megaton blast.
Lets do some math. If a kiloton = 1000 tons of TNT the total yield of 50 (lets go with "Fat Man" he was bigger) Fat Man's that could fuck us up pretty bad would be 50*21= 1000 kilotons or 1 mega ton.
Lets take that 1 mega ton and times it buy 50 to equal Russia's bomb.
1000kilotons*50 = 50000 kilotons or 50 megatons. I wonder how many Fat Mans would it take to equal the Russia bomb and see if it is more then the 50 that would fuck us up pretty bad.
50000 kilotons/21 kilotons = 2381..... oh shit thats a little more than 50 Where is this cooling that is suposed to take place. If only it only take 50 to cause as much as the artical leads you to believe we should be really fucked.
Not to mention all of the nuclear test blasts the US, Russia, and France. Have done.
If the 50 Fat Mans were droped on population centers the death toll from the blast would be very high but there would be no nuclear winter. There would be no mass continental radiation contamination.
I am not saying all to to be like pro nuclear weapons and nuclear war I am doing it because there are a lot of myths about nuclear weapons and to be an asshole a little.
Just because they are scary does not mean you should not know more about them and there effects.
oh come on now, the US didnt give the world slavery.
but all the rest? FUCK YEAH!!!
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I think that the point of the thread is that there are more important things to spend money on rather than defense. You even said yourself that the US overspends on aggression (I refuse to call it defense these days). There is nothing wrong with having a strong military. There is something inherently wrong when that stong military is abused and used to as a tool to enforce fucked up foreign policy all over the world.
Fuckers, get off your high horses and stop blaming the U.S. for the problems of the world that will always exist. A lot of you act like the Iraq war is the first ever war. Stop feeling sorry for yourselves. There are people around the world (like in Iraq and Darfur) who have to live it every day while you sob's whine with your high-speed internet connections downloading the latest movie because you feel entitled to everything.
So because there is warring and killing going on...we need to contribute to it, as well?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
all i feel entitled to is to live. all anyone should be entitled to is to live free. regardless of who they are or where they live, what religion they practise or whether they are female or male.
i fell off my high horse in the 80s.
all i can say is that if the US never spent money on its military, the world would be a very different palce indeed. they've done good and they've done stuff as a country they should be ashamed of. but i also imagine any other country in the same position would more than likely have made the same mistakes. the US didn't invent military and economic imperialism but they sure as hell learnt the lessons well.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I know the names of the bombs dropped on japan. It was a play on words.
A bomb set off here and there for testing will, more than likely, not have any major effect on the world as we know it. A nuclear war, fought between powers with a arsenal of several hundred, if not thousand of nukes will have disastrous results for both regions and it's population. I never said there shouldn't be any nuclear weapons at all. Mostly because I don't want to get into a discussion on whether or not nuking japan was necessary. I do think tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are completely unnecessary and could (notice I'm changing my stance. I'm not back pedaling like a politician.) push mankind to the brink of extinction if a worst case scenario took place.
I agree there is probably an excessive amount of Nuclear weapons. A full scale war would be disastrous, in loss of life and economically. But it would not bring human kind any-where close to extinction.
who would you rather give the #1 seat up to?
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
australia.
game of beach cricket followed by a bbq and a few icy beers and she'll be right mate. never a shot fired in anger.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
that word in bold says it all. you have to be absolutely insane to doubt for one second there is way too many nuclear weapons on this planet in the control of humans.
probably? give me a break. dont be afraid challenge yoursefl or your beliefs.
there is, without doubt, way too many nuclear weapons.
Trust me, I'd trust my faith in Howard over Bush anyday
AND...this is an important point, don't mistake grilling for BBQ
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
LMAO!!! i have minus zero faith in john howard.
and no way! i can play cricket, can't go the bocce. i'll bowl slow for you.
and what exactly is the difference between grilling and bbq?
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
grilling is slopping burgers etc on the grill....
BBQ is slow cooking meat for 10 to 14 hours at loooooooowww temperatures...so the meat falls off the bone....don't get me started!
i never played cricket, but it's similar to baseball, right?
bocce is the ultimate...finese, skill, strategery...it's all there.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
we use the term bbq for anything cooked on the grill. be it slow cooked or a nice piece of whatever meat you fancy. in my entire life ive never had a burger cooked on a grill/bbq.
no hawk, cricket is not similiar to baseball, though both are ballgames. it also requires finesse, strategy and skill. also the ability to not fall asleep when fielding out near the boundary.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
grilling burgers is not BBQ'ing...slow cooking pork, brisket...BBQing is all about slooooooow cooking...tender, and juicy meat....unfortunately, you can only bet REAL BBQ in the red states
i think cricket is similar to baseball, isn't there a pitcher, adn a batter? and bases?
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
cricket is not similar to baseball. trust me on this. in cricket there is a bowler, a wicketkeeper, 9 other fielders and 2 batsmen from the opposing team. a successful hit of a delivery(pitch if you will) can result in anywhere between 1 and 6 runs. even more if there is an misfield or overthrow. the batsmen, one on strike, the other not stand at opposite ends of a pitch. and run when the opportunity arises between what is termed wickets. there is no 3 strikes and youre out. you must get 10 players out before you get to bat. the 11th player is not out but can not continue without a batting partner, so he retires not out.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Example is Ahmedinejad. He once said something about how Bush's ego emanates through his nuclear arsenal. Bush might be a bit of a war-monger, but since when has he even given a fuck about nukes?
The prime minister of France once said that he would nuke any country that sponsored a terrorist attack against French soil. Where's the hate for the prime minister of France? It's a double-standard.
When I think of the might of the US military, I think of smart bombs and navy seals. I don't see anything wrong with having either of those.
http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=272825
This is a ridiculous discussion. First of all you will not find anywhere on this planet a serious person able to tell you, for sure, what could happen to the world on a full scale nuclear world. Because, as humans, we're used to building stuff that have unknown consequences to us, consequences we can only imagine and debate on forums.
Second, the problem is not even to bring the human kind to extinction, it's the capacity of doing 10,000 times what happened in Japan : killing civilians to stop a war?? I don't want to fight over if it was legitimate, but the nuclear bomb (along with any weapon targeting civilians) is a shitty idea. It's too late now so I understand that each country needs to have some, but that many bombs? It's too bad the reduction in nuclear weapons just got out of style and is not talked about anymore today.
What do you think would happen if the US went 1 on 1 with China today?