Quake3World

I'm purposfully ambiguous as to what I think a "nuclear disaster" entails. I know many people instantly think I mean some form of aggression, but it could be as simple as an *obviously* accidental explosion. I guess the purpose is to "get things rolling", but with positive outcomes, not nation-destroying nuclear consequences

I agree with Rush's thought, but without knowing the context his quote was placed in, it's impossible to know what he was thinking about. He's talking about the end, but doesn't mention the means

you guys were not taught about MAD(mutual assured destruction) in US schools?

Yea, that's the whole basis of the Cold War.

shadd_. wrote:you guys were not taught about MAD(mutual assured destruction) in US schools?

We believed that duck and cover shit too

Dave wrote:I'm purposfully ambiguous as to what I think a "nuclear disaster" entails. I know many people instantly think I mean some form of aggression, but it could be as simple as an *obviously* accidental explosion. I guess the purpose is to "get things rolling", but with positive outcomes, not nation-destroying nuclear consequences

I agree with Rush's thought, but without knowing the context his quote was placed in, it's impossible to know what he was thinking about. He's talking about the end, but doesn't mention the means

Well I agree that's what it would take, but I wouldn't agree that it's possible for it to be a positive event if it does. In order to be a big enough deal to get people's attention, which would be the purpose of it, it would have to be big enough to cause massive destruction, and would put massive amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.

So it's pretty much a lose-lose.

hehe. yeah duck and cover.

Dave wrote:I'm purposfully ambiguous as to what I think a "nuclear disaster" entails. I know many people instantly think I mean some form of aggression, but it could be as simple as an *obviously* accidental explosion. I guess the purpose is to "get things rolling", but with positive outcomes, not nation-destroying nuclear consequences

I agree with Rush's thought, but without knowing the context his quote was placed in, it's impossible to know what he was thinking about. He's talking about the end, but doesn't mention the means

I don't know Limbaugh's context either but from what I know of him (I've laughed at him since 1996) my guess would be that the US could end the threat of "rogue states" getting nukes by nuking them now to get rid of the threat entirely.

My guess is that he meant that only the US should have the chance to fire nukes.

Dave wrote:You're misunderstanding me.. I didn't say use all of them. I say an accident or something needs to happen before people realize they need to be gotten rid of because people are ignorant or don't want to confront the realities.... just like I posted before

You'd think people would get a hint of the danger they face by looking at what happened at Chernobyl.

"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."

:lol:

there is no threat from rogue states with nukes...do u know us military policy on the issue? well those rogue states do...

Transient wrote:

Dave wrote:You're misunderstanding me.. I didn't say use all of them. I say an accident or something needs to happen before people realize they need to be gotten rid of because people are ignorant or don't want to confront the realities.... just like I posted before

You'd think people would get a hint of the danger they face by looking at what happened at Chernobyl.

The difference between the Chernobyl explosion and a Hiroshima level of blast being that the Chernobyl plant was mostly left standing afterwards. If a device outside of a major city accidently went off, the effects could potentially be unignorable. Just look at the paranoia people exibit over nuclear enegy today after Chernobyl and TMI. Who knows what public perception might be today if neither of those events occured.

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

I actually got scared by those comments.

I REALLY want to fuck Ann Coultier.

If I got a chance to fuck Ann Coulter, it would definitely be all ass, and definitely no lube.

what she do in normal life?

I'd make her swallow after fucking her in the ass... See if she likes the taste of her BUTT

lol

"The demise of our community and culture is the fault of sissified men who have been overly influenced by women."

saturn wrote:what she do in normal life?

she writes best selling books...

saturn wrote:what she do in normal life?

Aside from the shitty books I'm not sure. She probably hires men who like their testicles crushed to play her husband for a day.

Dave wrote:We could run around in circles all day talking about why I think a catastrophic accident is the only way to end nuclear proliferation, so it's not really worth discussing. As far as people pursuing them further, that came during the Cold War when nothing was off-limits militarily.

The only time we actually saw the human effects of nuclear weapons was at the end of WWII. Nukes today are far more destructive, yet people really can't comprehend what that means.

We need a population control event anyhow.

lolleroo

tnf wrote:

Dave wrote:We could run around in circles all day talking about why I think a catastrophic accident is the only way to end nuclear proliferation, so it's not really worth discussing. As far as people pursuing them further, that came during the Cold War when nothing was off-limits militarily.

The only time we actually saw the human effects of nuclear weapons was at the end of WWII. Nukes today are far more destructive, yet people really can't comprehend what that means.

We need a population control event anyhow.

Only if we can find one that magically sucks in stupid people before exploding.

R00k wrote: Only if we can find one that magically sucks in stupid people before exploding.

That really did make me "lol."
The image of all these stupid people being sucked in, then BOOM!!! :evil:

Dave wrote:

Transient wrote:

Dave wrote:You're misunderstanding me.. I didn't say use all of them. I say an accident or something needs to happen before people realize they need to be gotten rid of because people are ignorant or don't want to confront the realities.... just like I posted before

You'd think people would get a hint of the danger they face by looking at what happened at Chernobyl.

The difference between the Chernobyl explosion and a Hiroshima level of blast being that the Chernobyl plant was mostly left standing afterwards. If a device outside of a major city accidently went off, the effects could potentially be unignorable. Just look at the paranoia people exibit over nuclear enegy today after Chernobyl and TMI. Who knows what public perception might be today if neither of those events occured.

“Scientology is the only specific (cure) for radiation (atomic bomb) burns.”

- L. Ron Hubbard, ALL ABOUT RADIATION, p. 109

Tom Cruise is the man