Nuclear Weapons.
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=56979
Printed Date: November 28 2024 at 13:22
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Nuclear Weapons.
Posted By: valravennz
Subject: Nuclear Weapons.
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 21:52
|
As much as I admire President Obama, his recent remarks saying that his ambition to rid of the world of Nuclear weapons, eventually, is rather unrealistic imo. There is too much paranoia in international politics to even consider starting to un-stock nuclear weapons from various world arsenals. There is still too much distrust. A wonderful sentiment but will it ever be achieved in our life-time? ------------- 
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Replies:
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:01
|
I had to pick yes. there is no logical way I could pick no or maybe. The world will eventually end, and therefore, will be rid of nuclear weapons. We will probably use said nuclear weapons to vaporize the planet, but after that, no more nuclear weapons. Call it a pragmatic technicality.  |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:02
|
Are you kidding? History has proven relentlessly that we are still a primitive, reactionnary two-steps removed from reckless self-destruction . When I was still young and an optimist, I tought that people were inherently good. Nope! Humans are a combination of shark and hyena with occasional bursts of empathy , sometimes just to spike the "humane" reputation. Yeah, right!
As JJ Rousseau stated ,and my favorite adage (passed on to Micky for editing for his own use) "The more I analyze the human race , the more I love my dog"
When aliens show up a la "The Day the Earth Caught Fire" , Klaatu will set it straight, once and for all! ZAP! ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:08
Very pragmatic. I take it you will be long gone from This Mortal Coil when this happens??  -------------
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Alitare wrote:Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:12
 - Yep the aliens will solve the problem utimately - because Man can't or dare not make the first move. Love your Rousseau quote - very apt when discussing the human condition or lack thereof  -------------
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:21
I remind myself of that quote every morning during the shaving ritual, like that i am never surprised or disappointed when confronted with human stupidity. While on adages, Einstein said that "there are 2 infinites, stupidity and the universe. Not too sure about the second one". I guess that says it all.  ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:31
Who could say? I would like to see such majestic fireworks, though... |
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 22:50
- Einstein got that right - well until some other quantum theory replaces that quote and proves him wrong! -------------
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: Drew
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 23:17
|
Yes, when everything on earth has been blown to bits there will be no more weapons. I voted Yes. Nuclear weapons are SO 1950's  ------------- |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: April 06 2009 at 23:31
Oddly enough you should be able to dig up a clip of Ronald Reagan saying pretty much the same thing about ridding the world of nuclear weapons when he was the US president. I saw it on Countdown. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 11:44
Sorry Tszirmay but that quote was said by Madam du Staal (probably misspeled here, I don't know to spel french names). Rousseau was the one that belived men are born good.
I think that to get rid of this horible weapon is right. If your nation suffered from such a weapon you still should not act the same cause it will destroy the world very quickly. Remember this comes from a person that only one bomb will end his own country ! ------------- omri |
Posted By: TheCaptain
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 11:51
I had the same thought. But in order to go with the spirit of the law instead of the letter, I voted no. ------------- Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal. |
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 12:55
My favorite TV show at the moment. |
Posted By: rpe9p
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 13:55
| We should just create a doomsday device so that nobody will ever attack us and countries will just get rid of their nuclear weapons. What could go wrong? |
Posted By: fusionfreak
Date Posted: April 07 2009 at 14:08
|
I would like to say yes but I'm quite pessimistic about it:we,human beings,can do the best and the worst.Moreover I don't think we have found the right way to get rid of any threat:military option doesn't seem to be the best choice.It may seem idealistic to many but a far better sharing of riches,education,end of starvation,independence of any state towards organised religions and true financial regulation should help a lot.Peace. ------------- I was born in the land of Mahavishnu,not so far from Kobaia.I'm looking for the world of searchers with the help from crimson king |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 10:58
------------- |
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 11:09
| Sure, as soon as they invent something more practical. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 11:22
 ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 12:31
Maybe we should just move to another planet !  No. We`d just screw that one up in no time.
------------- |
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 12:39
| Impossible. Won't happen. |
Posted By: Jozef
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 15:22
|
It would be nice and a step forward for humans, but it's not likely to happen in my opinion.
------------- 
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 15:29
|
Options we have: 1) Globalization takes its role, somewhat of a cohesive world government, those who refuse will be met with economic sanctions and ostricization, or war (looking at you middle east). Eventually, they'll be disarmed (at least 100 years from now, IMO) 2) In an effort to disarm, nuclear war, some countries nearly destroyed. There will be rallying in the wake of the horror, and true disarmament will begin. 3) Total nuclear war, bye-bye earth and humanity. In all honesty, I doubt 3 will happen. Also, I know next to nothing about the subject. My common sense is tingling, though.  ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 17:42
|
nuclear weapons just aren't going to go away... unless we find a better way to kill mass quantities of people then we are right back where we were... nor should they.... while some are guided by morality and regard for human life.... others we know well are not.. and the only thing really stopping them from getting and using the ULTIMATE weapon of terror is the knowledge that the country that support the wackos in getting to build and deliver a nuclear device will ...forget ideology of politics.. the American public... any country would demand.. retaliation in kind. ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 19:10
Heh, it seems to me that the best way to stop crazies blowing up the world is for there not to be a way to blow up the world, rather than the vague threat of retribution which said crazies aren't necessarily going to care about. Seriously, MAD isn't a very good guarantee of safety, in my view. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 19:18
|
oh deterrence DOES work.... trust me... if they could get one... don't think for a second they wouldn't use one. No country has..or would dare offer the resources only a nation-state could provide for a terrorist group and construct and deploy a nuclear device. We couldn't strike back at a shadow organization any better than we have.. but ask Afghanistan just what we'd do... would your country would do.. if a nation-state directly supported mass murderers.
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 19:39
The Cuban missile crisis suggests otherwise... two events right there when nuclear war was prevented by, essentially, chance. Do I like having to trust the same brand of US government (not just the US... the political idiots here, the new Putin regime, Berlusconi... just about anyone, really) that took such a knee-jerk (though, in a way, understandable) reaction to 9/11 to avoid brinksmanship or unneeded, or misdirected, retaliation? Not really. All the system's waiting for is someone in a position of power who a) doesn't care about self-preservation or b) thinks they can win the mass-nuclear-destruction game. I think that it's just about inevitable that some nuclear weapon will get into the hands of terrorists one day... what the world really doesn't need is a USA (or well, anywhere) with ridiculous-nuclear-destruction-power when that happens. |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 20:01
------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: April 08 2009 at 20:53
A bluff is no good if you fold as soon as an opponent calls your bluff.. you raise the stakes.. until they forced to either fold... or show their cards. The Soviets did fold...because they held a hand that was not a winner. They knew it.. so did we. On the CMC... brinkmanship it certainly was. Thing is, the US didn't actually know there were armed warheads there... they were gambling without knowledge of the facts - didn't really know they were on the brink. Reasons war didn't break out - the 2nd/3rd (don't remember which) in command of a Russian nuclear submarine which was being depth-charged refused permission (quite an amazing act of restraint), and the Kennedy gov't didn't carry out its planned agenda of action on a couple of occasions. There were several occasions when the planned actions of both sides would have led to nuclear war if not for, essentially, dumb luck... McNamara has said as much. anda knee jerk reaction to 9/11?.... oh come on .. if we HAD dropped nuclear weapons over Kabul in response. THAT is knee-jerk. I think you forget that much like the Gulf War... that was done in the name of united world opinion. The Gulf war is a completely different kettle of fish... in my view, the reaction to 9/11 was rash and knee-jerk, if you think it wasn't, I'm not going to change your mind. 'on't stay up at night waiting for a person in power that is NOT concerned about self-preservation hahah' There are people who aren't concerned about self-preservation around... I figure it's just a matter of time. 'Only the Chinese might think that.. in that.. they are ..and have been the real nuclear nightmare' McCarthy? I think he estimated 10% losses for America in the case of a nuclear war/pre-emptive strike and considered that justifiable.. I think the real safety measure there is economic... Chinese interests are too linked to the rest of the world economically. Nowadays, I think, it has got to the point where safety concerns are so much noone thinks they can win... maybe more precision-based nuclear warheads could get used in the Middle East. Sorry... I might be a political sissy.. a flaming liberal... but it does well the enemies of this country.. that if anyone detonated a nuke here..even in your country... I'd be the first to say 'nuke the sh*t out of the b*****ds.. those that did it if we can trace them.. or those that provided them the weapon. That is an act of war...and you don't fight a war with one hand tied around your back. It is that rediculous destruction power that will be the reason that a nuclear device, God willing, is never detonated by terrorists. They won't fear us of course.. but those that provide the weapon.. those are the ones of power and privilage.. who would then feel the wrath of a united world. Not just us. I can't see what such a retaliatory strike would achieve except massive civilian casualties and hitting the wrong people, and potentially getting China very angry. Sure, I'd understand any response at the right people (and if you can't find the right people, will the anger not lead to the wrong people getting hit). I understand it, but I still think it wouldn't achieve anything except more destruction, and I think the real threat of nuclear weapons isn't a terrorist strike, but the response to it. Anyway, sure I come off as more anti-US than I am... I just don't think having nuclear weapons (in the possession of any country, not specifically the US) is a good option for the world, and I think MAD isn't a great concept to have underpinning world peace. |
Posted By: npjnpj
Date Posted: April 09 2009 at 05:06
| Thank goodness it's still being talked about. Who knows if it'll ever come true, but at least high places still propagate it. |
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: April 10 2009 at 01:19
|
I agree with TGM:-Orb. The real danger is someone who is a leader of a state that has this weapon. The second gulf war is a good example of doing the wrong thing (to both sides) by a state. We should remember nuclear weapon was used only by states.
I think we should all pray that Obama succeeds. ------------- omri |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 10 2009 at 02:50
|
Since Hiroshima, the US (for all their follies ) was involved in military conflict over Berlin, Korea, Vietnam (Laos, Cambodia), Grenada, Panama, Irak, as well as a few Defcon hair-raisers (Iran (Truman), Cuba, Yom Kippur war, Korean Airlines) and never nuked again. I must agree with Micky that over-reacting is when you OBLITERATE everything! As far as MAD is concerned , how can it not be perceived as successful when 2 superpowers totally ignorant of one another did not come to blows all silos aglow ! Sadly, I lived all my 52 years under the threat of imminent nuclear attack (no not the Greg lake song!) and I have seen no mushroom clouds (thanks to whom or what?) . Interestingly, no Arab country has bothered to invade Israel (and toss them into the ocean) ever since Vannunu announced to the world that Israel had the bomb (a very clever ploy BTW) . The sign "Beware of Dog" is still the best alarm system in the world.
Frankly, I am stunned that we haven't destroyed our planet yet with nukes but that is not luck but rather logic. There are no winners , only losers. I fear that states that eliminate nukes will become hostages to unseen individuals who know how to use them and will . BTW, do you know how easy it is to make one? Childsplay, only getting ALL the parts is hard.  ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: TGM: Orb
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 04:51
As I mentioned, there were two incidents in the CMC alone when there was really nothing but chance in the way of a nuclear war (not my views - those of the man who was US defence secretary at the time...). Thing is, if the MAD system breaks once... it only requires one 'slip' and there really is no learning curve and second chance. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 11 2009 at 07:37
|
The problem with MAD is it that it is not mutual, nor is it assured and only applies to superpowers that have significantly more weapons than are required. The nightmare option is not losing but winning, not dying but surviving.
Unfortunately we cannot unmake the technology, even if disarm every nation on the planet, the knowledge and raw materials to make more still exists and I don't trust any nation to dismantle their weapons and not keep the component parts hidden away.
The only reason we don't fight wars with spears and arrows is because that technology was surpassed by missiles and bullets; the only way nuclear weapons will be scrapped is when a better technology replaces them, or when we nuke ourselves back to the Stone Age and simply haven't the technology to launch any more.
We live in a world that thinks it's okay to throw lumps of depleted uranium at each other, where collateral damage is a valid military term, where terrorism and suicide bombing is the road to victory and attack is the best form of defense. Those mindsets have to change before we can consider any form of disarmament, and once we've achieved that then there is no reason to stop at just nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it will never happen because man is a pack-animal, our nature is geared to the preservation of the "tribe" not the individual.
------------- What? |
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 10:31
The question is : Do we need so many bombs ? or can we leave just some of these and at least stop producing more bombs ? How many bombs do we need to feel secure ?
As tzirmay said, the Arab countrys (knowing Israel has nuclear weapon many years before Vanounou) never felt offended by that fact cause they know very well that Israel will never dare to use it. ------------- omri |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 12 2009 at 11:16
|
US & Russia could probably successfully negotiate significant arms reductions, as indeed they have in the past.
However, I cant see China coming along to this 'ban the bomb' party any day soon. Also, I cant imagine Iran or NK scrapping their nuclear programme, and Israel is certainly not going to give them up, while it is surrounded by countries, who they think are plotting their destruction. The technology is there. The genie is out of the bottle, and he is too fat to squeeze back in. Face it, we're stuck with them. |
Posted By: manofmystery
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 00:13
|
not as long as I am stockpiling them
bwaaahaha -------------  Time always wins. |
Posted By: Dean
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 05:28
There is no magic optimal number - each nation feels it needs enough to defend itself, but that is false logic - what they actually want is enough to destroy their enemies. If it were truly a deterrent then all that is required is 203 - one for every nation on the planet.
Deterrent only works when it is accepted as the ultimate deterrent. When one nation is convinced that another will never use the weapons then its effect as a deterrent is void. But when someone thinks they can win a nuclear war and cares little for the consequences (ie has no intention of clearing up the mess afterwards), or feels that it is the only option, then the threat is both real and valid. The fear is in using as a weapon of aggression - the question is not whether the one nation trusts another not to use the nuclear option, but whether the rest of the world will react when one is used. ------------- What? |
Posted By: omri
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 07:56
Exactly ! and if we remember this reaction can only make things worse wouldn't it be wiser to give it up from the start ? ------------- omri |
Posted By: micky
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 08:05
yep... ------------- The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 13 2009 at 10:35
Thanks for the edit, Micky  I guess you're right.
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 16 2009 at 15:57
|
When I was in the air force you wouldn`t believe some of the stories I heard about nukes. One of the types I flew carried nukes ( genie AAMs ) in the late 60s & early 70s but we only carried 2 Falcon AAMs in my day because the Liberal government under Trudeau said no more nukes around `71 . They ( the Genies ) were nevertheless stockpiled and we were trained to fire them. I met this US Navy pilot once down in Florida and he told me that there are nukes scattered all over the Pacific ocean floor from crashes and accidents. One particular incident he related to me was about a A-4 Skyhawk with a nuke on it that rolled off the deck of a carrier intact as result of a handling mishap in the Sea Of Japan in the early 70s. They were unable to recover the nuke and the a/c because the water was too deep so they left the a/c down there nuke and all. Just about 5 or 6 years ago they recovered some nukes from a crashed B-52 bomber off the coast of Spain that went down back in the 60s! Just makes me wonder what would happen if some rich madman salvages of one these and decides to hold the planet hostage. Then we`d have to call in James Bond. ------------- |
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: April 16 2009 at 23:39
Good ole Bond to save the world, again........ ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 02:38
|
Vibrationbaby, thats terrifying.
Not the sort of thing you hear on mainstream primetime news. Funny how we alwsys said it was nukes from the former USSR that could fall into the hands of terrorists, when it could just as well be nukes lying in the sea off the coast of some European country, courtesy of our good selves. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 10:33
|
There was another story I heard about a B-52 carrying nukes that accidentally flew into Russian airspace back in the 80s ( I was in Australia ) during a SAC exercise and it was a Russian air force general who realised that it was an error because they were monitoring the exercise and prevented the scrambling of Russian interceptors or the firing of missiles thus potentially averting a third world war. Funny because they used to always do it to us on almost a weekly basis and all we`d do is intercept them ( delayed intercepts ) , take pictures of them, wave to them then escort them back to their airspace and from what I understand they are up to their old tricks again with their old TU-95 Bear cold war bombers in addition to the newer nuke capable TU-160 Swan supersonic bombers which is their answer to the American B-1 Lancer. In addition to a few incidents with our own CF-18s in the Canadian arctic , the Danes and British have reported a number of interceptions over the North Sea. Must be something about this on the wonderful internet somewhere. ------------- |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 11:03
It was reported on the BBC news (perhaps suprisingly) last year, that Russian aircraft had enetered British airspace, and that the Russians were routinely carrying out this kind of exercises. I thought that was quite a big deal, symbolically if nothing else. I assume it still goes on, but we never hear about it now. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 13:01
|
Punch in Canada : Piss Off Russia on youtube.
------------- |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 13:32
|
^^^ Indeed and it's clear to see why Russia are hanging out in the arctic so much..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXrG5vNrvGM&NR=1 - Battle for resources.. |
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 17 2009 at 13:41
Yeah, now that it`s convenient for them ( with this global thaw ) they think that they can just stroll in and make territorial claims. 
------------- |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 19 2009 at 02:52
|
I had to go looking for this in the news. It's not been on TV, and it dissapeared off the BBC news homepage, yesterday, where it was only a minor story anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8004399.stm - NATO exercises in Georgia - 'A dangerous move' This would have been 'top of the pile' news years ago, why is the media so coy about reporting things like this now? |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: April 19 2009 at 03:12
| The only way I see nukes being gotten rid of is if ballistic missile defense gets so advanced that they are rendered unusable. But then you still have the issue of suitcase bombs and the like. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: April 19 2009 at 06:02
|
^^^ A number of which have been unaccounted for since the collapse of the USSR.
|
Posted By: Vibrationbaby
Date Posted: April 24 2009 at 13:11
|
They were selling all kinds of military hardware back in the early 90s from AK 47s to freakin`submarines. Th Columbians were using one to smuggle cocaine.
------------- |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: April 25 2009 at 07:20
|
At least if there's an apocalypse, I hope it's all cool and dramatic like Jericho. I like that show, but man that's the most unlikely group of characters to end up in a backwater Kansas town. |
Posted By: progkidjoel
Date Posted: June 05 2009 at 08:43
|
Nope. ------------- 
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 12:39
| nuclear weapons have become a symbol of global power and fear. even if the usa and europe eradicate nuclear weapons, other nations will seek to acquire them to show their advancement into being a global power. |
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 12:57
Yup, it's pretty f*cking stupid. We had to go back and forth with the Soviets saying "oh look at me! I can wipe out the planet" "yeah? I can wipe out the planet twice" Really the Cold War was just 2 kids on a playground trying to run it. And now we all have matured....but there's the new generation of kids on the playground... |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 12:59
Indeed. They are basically bargaining chips. Countries like Iran and North Korea want these weapons, because they know the US and her allies will leave them alone. |
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 13:22
it was more elaborate than that-the weapons actually kept two mostly rational nations from going to war. during the cold war, there were representational fights and small wars, but the thing keeping the usa and the ussr from launching into a huge full blown death and destrction war was the fact that neither wanted to be the one that set forth the wheels of annihilation. the problem with nuclear weapons in the hands of religious radicals such as iran or rogue nations such as north korea (they are a chinese puppet that is now refusing to listen to china) is they are more interested in wreaking havoc than in using diplomacy to avoid war. iran is without a doubt the biggest factor in the terrorism being carried out in the middle east. they would have no qualms turning over nuclear warheads to hamas or hezbollah to cause mayhem. similarly, north korea could hand over nuclear weapons to enemies of the usa, europe or even china to prove a point and to get funding.
|
Posted By: darksinger
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 13:24
it also is power...iran does not necessarily want us to leave them alone, they seek influence in the middle east, especially in regards to religious zealotry and to the presence of israel. north korea has a leader that is dying and probably does not give a rat's ass now who he pisses off.
|
Posted By: camilleanne
Date Posted: July 19 2009 at 21:09
|
I think not..It's a great weapon during wars.
------------- The planet is fine the people are f**ked. -George Carlin- |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 11:27
|
Yes. But only if we come across a more powerful weapon. Example, you don't see many wars fought with axes nowadays do you?
------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 12:58
|
Don't know how to answer to the big question, but I could not hesitate to link as flavour pic to the discussion a pic about "rope trick effect", where the explosion shockwave runs faster in the cables holding the device than in air.
 |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 14:04
No, and that's why the nowadays world sucks. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 14:15
Thats an amazing pic. Is that the split second of the detonation? |
Posted By: J-Man
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 15:28
|
hmmm... I guess either we put an end to the world using nuclear weapons, or they never go away.
------------- 
Check out my YouTube channel! http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime" rel="nofollow - http://www.youtube.com/user/demiseoftime |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: July 20 2009 at 23:50
| of course, once they annihilate the world =) |
Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: July 21 2009 at 08:20
How true! No, not true: nuclear weapons couldn't annihilate the world. They could annihilate any lifeform, except scorpions and tardigrads. |
Posted By: The Pessimist
Date Posted: July 21 2009 at 12:22
And Keith Richards. ------------- "Market value is irrelevant to intrinsic value." Arnold Schoenberg |
Posted By: valravennz
Date Posted: August 19 2009 at 22:40
 -------------
"Music is the Wine that fills the cup of Silence" - Robert Fripp |
Posted By: A Person
Date Posted: August 19 2009 at 23:07
That's why we should work to create a weapon that will annihilate all life forms, if I'm going down all the creepy crawlies should go down too. Off course, there should be a shelter for all cute animals, with food synthesizers to provide food after the holocaust. I wouldn't want the bunnies to be hungry, but all the spiders and bees can die a long slow death for all I would care at that point. |
Posted By: jampa17
Date Posted: October 09 2009 at 17:21
Agree... of course, some of us will survive, will survive in small countries that do not have technology enough to be destroyed... and then there will be no more nuclear weapons... I really see it like that... after that... we will change... until our children forgot and start everything all over again... ------------- |
Posted By: The Block
Date Posted: October 14 2009 at 19:58
|
The world will never be rid of them as long as Dream Theater is playing, for once they have the song it will destroy the world
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Dream_Theater - http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Dream_Theater -------------  |
Posted By: Philamelian
Date Posted: October 16 2009 at 06:19
|
Getting rid of weapons means getting rid of the idea of war for me. You must be so hopeful to expect such kind of wisdom from humankind. We are somehow still in the very beginning of humankinds evoluation. There is no difference than stupid tribe fights than, wars for nation, wars for religion ... How many wars or fights aims a sustainable peace and throughout progress for humankind's future. The sense of belonging is a primitive thing and source of destruction in many cases. |