|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Apr 6th, 2006 08:43 PM | ||
| kahljorn | When he was first getting into office my friends and I saw an article that said, "Bush fights for world peace" or "Bush unites world" or something, and we started saying he was the anti-christ. | |
| Apr 6th, 2006 08:32 PM | ||
| Johnny Couth | We get to have them, but no one else does. Sounds right to me. | |
| Apr 6th, 2006 08:02 PM | ||
| ScruU2wice |
Quote:
Agreed. I don't like metaphors but it seems alot like stacking cards into a tower where you're leaning two cards and each is being supported by the others weight. There's only going to be a balance for so long and even the slightest wind can knock it down.. |
|
| Apr 6th, 2006 05:36 PM | ||
| mburbank |
He has a stone woody for making all kinds of smaller, battle field ready, easily portable 'mini'-nukes. And I was just kind of asking if anybody thought maybe he was the anti-christ. 250 brand spankin' new nukes a year seemed as good a place as any to start. Especially since we reaslly don't need to repalce all our faiuling nukes, since we already have enough to steralize the world several times over. |
|
| Apr 6th, 2006 05:18 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
I'm glad to see you still have that crush on me, Bubba. I think you may be right, however. If we have X amount of nukes today, and we'll still have X amount of nukes then, I don't know that this is a crisis. But proliferation would be stupid, especially while we attempt to decide which nations can and can't have the bomb. |
|
| Apr 6th, 2006 04:08 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | Mutually assured destruction is the single dumbest "defense" idea concieved by any human being ever. | |
| Apr 6th, 2006 04:06 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Before Kevin flies off the handle at me I just want to put it out there that I know very little about Nuclear Bombs and their upkeep, but have a fair understanding of them. What I am taking from this article is that the current U.S Nuclear Arsenal is reaching an age at which point the bombs would pose a potential danger just being kept and maintained. What evidence is provided here that the administration plans to bolster the number of nuclear weapons and not just replace ones being retired and I would imagine safely disposed of? Are you saying hes the anti-christ because he isn't letting the supply of nuclear weapons eventually dwindle away? The technology required to create a nuclear bomb is widely available and will be for all of human time from now on. Isn't the most realisitc way to avoid nuclear combat is to ensure than any potential wielder of nuclear weapons knows that retaliation will be the equivalent, since you cannot and will not ever dispose of them all? I don't know though. Just making sure yall know. Kevin please don't claim to have aborted me at birth or something. it hurts my feelings. |
|
| Apr 6th, 2006 01:56 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Is George Bush the Anti-Christ? Â*Â*Bush Administration Unveils Nuclear Weapons Complex Blueprint Â*Â*Â*Â*By Ralph Vartabedian Â*Â*Â*Â*The Los Angeles Times Â*Â*Â*Â*Thursday 06 April 2006 The administration's proposal would modernize the nation's complex of laboratories and factories as well as produce new bombs. Â*Â*Â*Â*The Bush administration on Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding the United States' decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity. Â*Â*Â*Â*The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear bombs since the end of the Cold War. Â*Â*Â*Â*Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that it claims will no longer be reliable or safe. |
|
