Topic: Preemptive Nuclear War
davinci1952's photo
Mon 06/25/07 04:56 PM
only 5 min long

http://youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk


:heart: :heart: :heart: indifferent

RainbowTrout's photo
Mon 06/25/07 05:05 PM
Thanks for sharing that.flowerforyou

Fanta46's photo
Mon 06/25/07 06:52 PM
That is a good message devinci! That is well worth listening to and
portrays what I think is a just cause. Bravo, Ron Paul!!!

I dont see one politician running that I agree with on every point. Do
you?

I am still looking and it is a long way till election day. Please dont
be offended if I dont agree with everything he says! OK!!! drinker
drinker

davinci1952's photo
Mon 06/25/07 08:54 PM
I'm not Fanta..
and if a candidate came along with a better message I would
certainly give it consideration.....drinker

Nu2FL's photo
Mon 06/25/07 09:26 PM
It all depends on the situation. I can envision senarios when it would
be justified and in fact, irresponsible not to.......

AdventureBegins's photo
Mon 06/25/07 10:44 PM
Justified?

How many here have a clear knowledge of the long term effects of a
nuclear detonation to say nothing of the short term devastation?

A single ground burst weapon of 20 megatons would make all of New York
look just like ground zero at the Twin Towers (with none or very few
survivors).

The radioactive cloud from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still in our
atmosphere (although disapated somewhat).

What justification would you see that could make it worthwhile to
completely obliterate a city of say... 2 million people.

PEOPLE. They breath eat sleep and dream just like you. Most of the
people that would die have just as much say in their governmental
policies as you do. NONE. You would be swatting at a fly with a
grenade. (here buddy theres a fly on your back quick hold this grenade
while I pull the pin... well get that sucker)

Fanta46's photo
Mon 06/25/07 10:50 PM
Nicely put AB!!!drinker

no photo
Tue 06/26/07 12:35 AM
There is NO justification what so ever for a nuclear blast.
If scientists had known what they unleash in Hiroshima and Nagasaki it
would never have happened.

davinci1952's photo
Tue 06/26/07 04:24 AM
there are documents around that point out that the military miniaturized
nuclear weaponery as far back as the early 60's...
they could design a nuke small enuf to just take out a building
only...very precise...

but still there is always collateral damage....you would have to be mad
to start nuking other countries.....of course with depleted uranium
they have already begun nuking that part of the world..

Zapchaser's photo
Tue 06/26/07 06:05 AM
Nuking with depleted uranium? Come on davinci. Wiki depleted uranium. I
would be more concerned with the aspartame in my soda.

davinci1952's photo
Tue 06/26/07 06:34 PM
Zap my man...
tons of depleted uranium in the form of armaments will certainly have a
cumulative effect for generations....there is plenty of scientific
debate about that...
and I gave up soda's a long time ago... bigsmile bigsmile I do miss
Dr Pepper...huh

daniel48706's photo
Tue 06/26/07 09:20 PM
I know what you mean about dr. pepper da vinci, however I have to
disagree about nukes of ANY kind. even if you were able to take out
just that one building, a nuclear bomb by design spreads the
contamination it releases intot he atmosphere where for all intents and
purposes it grows and grows and does not dissipate. Yes eventually it
will be gone, but not beofre your grandchildren 10 times over are seeing
their grandchildren. Not only that, but it can get caught on the winds
and currrents and be brought right back to us in the united states and
then we are suffering from the fallout without having had the
destruction of the bomb itself.\
In simple terms, a nuclear bomb is something that goes on killing for
centuries after detonation.

Zapchaser's photo
Tue 06/26/07 09:21 PM
laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh
laugh laugh Hey Grandpa! I am one as well now! I can't do the sugar
thing so I enjoy diet Dr. Pepper. Not so bad. drinker

Oceans5555's photo
Sat 06/30/07 11:06 PM
My understanding is from unclassified materials that the smallest nuke is in the range of 1.5 kilotons -- about 1/10th Hiroshima bomb. And yes, it can be fit into a (heavy) suitcase.

Worse weapons, in terms of cost and mobility, are on the horizon.

My guess is that the world is on for a nother unsettling period of nuclear-related negotiations, saber-rattling, scares and crises until we find a collective formula that allows people to feel semi-secure.

ohwell

Oceans

smo's photo
Sat 07/07/07 09:05 AM
I do not think our leaders want a preemptive nuclear war, I think they just want a nuclear war ,period. that is why they are trying to bad mouth Iran constantly, trying to get public backing for what they want to do. I think that is why Putin came over here the other day, to prevent nuclear war. Interesting LOOK UP: whatdoesitmean.com