ClumsyMonkey.net

by **Axtech** » 2/9/2006, 5:03 pm

Isn't this the shit that they invade other countries for doing?

by **Kathy** » 2/9/2006, 6:43 pm

yes, yes it is.

I read this story and, ... I don't even know what to say. Urgh!! :cuss:

by **Johnny** » 2/9/2006, 7:12 pm

I guess they want a more efficient way of vaporizing the masses.

by **quietorloud** » 2/9/2006, 7:42 pm

by **Axtech** » 2/9/2006, 7:43 pm

by **pit_girl1** » 2/9/2006, 7:43 pm

by **quietorloud** » 2/9/2006, 8:31 pm

by **Axtech** » 2/9/2006, 9:28 pm

hahaha, okay good.

by **bovine** » 2/9/2006, 10:04 pm

I don't see any reason for this. Even for someone taking a pro-war stance, this is simply a waste of tax dollars. I read somewhere a while back that the U.S. alone has enough bombs and other such weapons to kill everyone on Earth something like 6 times (it might not be 6, but it's well over once). Once you kill everyone once, the rest of the weapons don't serve much of a purpose, do they?

Again, the above is what I would imagine a "senseable" pro-war stance would be. For me, I am a pacifist, so it's even worse for me. I agree 100% with what Rob said about how we invade countries for the same thing we are doing. Whenever I say that, some conservative always chimes in and says "but such-and-such a country is part of the axis of evil and they signed a treaty and they torture their own people, blah blah blah." Now, don't get me wrong, all of that might be true (and I don't mean to lessen the severity of such attrocities), but talking strictly about nuclear weapons, the U.S. is the only country to have ever used them against a civilian population. Maybe we should sign a few of these treaties that conservatives talk about :roll:

by **closeyoureyes** » 2/9/2006, 10:55 pm

One thing.
What the hell.

by **nelison** » 2/9/2006, 11:13 pm

A couple things...

The USA hasn't invaded anyone for actually having WMD's. Yes they said Iraq had them, but if you apply game theory to the situation you'll see it was just a reason to get in there and that they never had weapons. This is why the USA won't invade North Korea, and won't invade Iran if they end up developing a weapon.

The idea behind game theory is that if everyone has a weapon, no one will use them. For example, if you're in a room and everyone has their guns pulled out and aimed at a different person, odds are no one will shoot because they know they will be killed as well. You can also apply this to why the USA went to Iraq instead of a nation that had a weapon. If they invade a country that has a weapon (and in this case, the country is far weaker in strength) that country will use the weapon in a desperate act. This will cause retaliation, and it is not something either sides wants. They went to Iraq because they knew there would not be any WMDs and therefore nothing to really worry about.

The development of an H-bomb is nothing to worry about. It is merely an act of the where it is about producing jobs in time for the future elections. They're never intended for use. At least in my opinion they aren't.

by **closeyoureyes** » 2/9/2006, 11:17 pm

It's a massive waste of money. Plus.. I dunno, I'd wonder about them being used.

by **Johnny** » 2/10/2006, 12:07 am

You're wondering if the USA will use nukes? I highly doubt that.

Deterence is a powerfull weapon.

by **Hope** » 2/10/2006, 1:32 am

by **Korzic** » 2/10/2006, 3:06 am

by **nikki4982** » 2/10/2006, 6:39 am

by **bovine** » 2/10/2006, 8:11 am

by **nikki4982** » 2/10/2006, 8:28 am

by **bovine** » 2/10/2006, 8:46 am

by **pit_girl1** » 2/10/2006, 1:00 pm

ClumsyMonkey.net

Bombs Away!

Bombs Away!

Re: Bombs Away!

Who is online