Originally posted by: WESHALLPRESERVE
Alrighty I'll buy it.
1- It was one of the two proposed scenarios. While the president has, theorically, power to authorize such measure and access to the codes (the nicknamed "football" that supposedly follows him wherever he goes, although I find this unlikely), this is a somewhat unlikely and absurdist event - if the USA is to EVER use nuclear weapons, this is one of the two possible alternatives.
2- Alrighty, I'll IGNORE what Faux News and Cartoon Network News said - that they can only reach Japan, which is pretty unlikely to me - and buy your theory that they can reach San Francisco. SO, the only way the USA would use a nuclear weapon in retaliation is after San Francisco is TOAST. Millions dead. So you'd say "Oh but that's just so they won't hit us again with another one", well, don't you think they can SEE beyond that strategy? Do you think they expect anything else? Kim Jong or whatever the man is called will be in a bunker, ready to go, ready to sacrifice poor north koreans who have nothing to do with it. And suppose North Korea abandons such plans, what is the next target? I'm asuming China - the space weapon race against China has already began, aparently. No on can win a nuclear war.
3- No. I belive NO ONE would get out alive of such scenario. Would take years, but life itself would be doomned. Even being optimistic, the world will be a fucked up place to live after a nuclear war. BUT! aparently that isn't so, this is as real as global warming, nuclear warheads only kill "teh evil terrorists".
And wow, if you ever get yourself trapped in a socialist party convention you'll probably have a heart attack or something, easy there...
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
One more reason why Bushy McPhushy won't go "General Ripper" (that sounds familiar... what cartoon is it from?): if humanity goes extinct, there won't be any money!
Originally posted by: ricarleite
You're totally missing the point! In which case such weapon would be used? There are only two possible scenarios:
1- GW Bush goes "General Ripper" on us and strike North Korea first - and whatever the hell he wants to bomb as well, the highest the number of megadeaths on the first night, the better.
2- The United States waits until North Korea attacks Japan - which is as close as they can get so far. So we'll have millions of Japanese and Korean civillians dead.
And on BOTH alternatives, you'll have a nuclear winter than will vanish humankind from the Earth - which is a good thing, if you think about it.
So PLEASE, again, anyone, give me a good reason for keeping nuclear weapons. Without using the words "just shut up" or "liberal commie bastard".
Ok then I'll take your proposition-
1.What the hell is up with you people that think "General Bush" is the fucking King of the nation?Do you have any sliver of an idea on how the American Government works? NEWS FLASH! HE'S NOT! HE CAN'T FUCKING GO "GENERAL RIPPER" on his own--like he would do that!? It has never been done and never will be done you crazy person-
2.What do you mean wait until they attack Japan? What do you mean thats as close as they can get? The TaiPong II missile can reach my home of sunny San Fransisco. Just because you saw one of them fail a test, does not mean they don't have the capability-
3. Hehe--Nuclear Winter that will vanish man kind from the earth? Your a real defeatist--you don't think that your people will be the ones that will get out of this one? Nuclear weapons are a powerful, powerful deterrent---the baddest of the bad are working on getting them----there is so many reason why we need to keep Nuclear weapons. Ric, this ain't the cold war! Get out of that 1976 frame of mind!
You're totally missing the point! In which case such weapon would be used? There are only two possible scenarios:
1- GW Bush goes "General Ripper" on us and strike North Korea first - and whatever the hell he wants to bomb as well, the highest the number of megadeaths on the first night, the better.
2- The United States waits until North Korea attacks Japan - which is as close as they can get so far. So we'll have millions of Japanese and Korean civillians dead.
And on BOTH alternatives, you'll have a nuclear winter than will vanish humankind from the Earth - which is a good thing, if you think about it.
So PLEASE, again, anyone, give me a good reason for keeping nuclear weapons. Without using the words "just shut up" or "liberal commie bastard".
Ok then I'll take your proposition-
1.What the hell is up with you people that think "General Bush" is the fucking King of the nation?Do you have any sliver of an idea on how the American Government works? NEWS FLASH! HE'S NOT! HE CAN'T FUCKING GO "GENERAL RIPPER" on his own--like he would do that!? It has never been done and never will be done you crazy person-
2.What do you mean wait until they attack Japan? What do you mean thats as close as they can get? The TaiPong II missile can reach my home of sunny San Fransisco. Just because you saw one of them fail a test, does not mean they don't have the capability-
3. Hehe--Nuclear Winter that will vanish man kind from the earth? Your a real defeatist--you don't think that your people will be the ones that will get out of this one? Nuclear weapons are a powerful, powerful deterrent---the baddest of the bad are working on getting them----there is so many reason why we need to keep Nuclear weapons. Ric, this ain't the cold war! Get out of that 1976 frame of mind!
Alrighty I'll buy it.
1- It was one of the two proposed scenarios. While the president has, theorically, power to authorize such measure and access to the codes (the nicknamed "football" that supposedly follows him wherever he goes, although I find this unlikely), this is a somewhat unlikely and absurdist event - if the USA is to EVER use nuclear weapons, this is one of the two possible alternatives.
2- Alrighty, I'll IGNORE what Faux News and Cartoon Network News said - that they can only reach Japan, which is pretty unlikely to me - and buy your theory that they can reach San Francisco. SO, the only way the USA would use a nuclear weapon in retaliation is after San Francisco is TOAST. Millions dead. So you'd say "Oh but that's just so they won't hit us again with another one", well, don't you think they can SEE beyond that strategy? Do you think they expect anything else? Kim Jong or whatever the man is called will be in a bunker, ready to go, ready to sacrifice poor north koreans who have nothing to do with it. And suppose North Korea abandons such plans, what is the next target? I'm asuming China - the space weapon race against China has already began, aparently. No on can win a nuclear war.
3- No. I belive NO ONE would get out alive of such scenario. Would take years, but life itself would be doomned. Even being optimistic, the world will be a fucked up place to live after a nuclear war. BUT! aparently that isn't so, this is as real as global warming, nuclear warheads only kill "teh evil terrorists".
And wow, if you ever get yourself trapped in a socialist party convention you'll probably have a heart attack or something, easy there...
Originally posted by: Johnboy3434
One more reason why Bushy McPhushy won't go "General Ripper" (that sounds familiar... what cartoon is it from?): if humanity goes extinct, there won't be any money!
It's from Dr. Strangelove.