This Is Scary


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by PM5K

Actually the original purpose of that part was to protect us from our own Army, and in times of Civil War, although it may be hard to believe, a Civil War is always possible, even now.

I'm sure a legally concealed handgun each would really help the civilian population against a tank.

Civil war is possible, but it's really not likely.

I think using the possibility of a civil war as a justification is grasping at straws.

--

unspec

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by chrisa107

Kinda. The reason we dropped the atomic (not nuclear, which cause WAY more damage) bombs on Japan was that it was estimated the only way to end the Pacific war was either to invade Japan with a ground force which would rival the one used on D-Day, or to drop the atomic bombs. Since it was estimated that the bomb would cause less damage overall, we used it.

"On August 6, 1945, a B-29 "Flying Fortress" named the Enola Gay dropped the uranium bomb known as "Little Boy" over the city of Hiroshima. It missed the Aioi Bridge, its target, by 550 feet. The explosion was equivalent to 18,000 tons of TNT. Even though the bomb missed, the power of the explosion destroyed the bridge as well as the city. Instantly, 66,000 people were killed and over 69,000 people were injured [Dyson, 1997]. The story does not end there. Due to the radioactive fallout, many more people died. By the end of 1945, it was estimated that 140,000 people died in Hiroshima as a result of the explosion [Fermi, 1995]. Radiation was a major factor after 1945. Between 1946 and 1951, over 60,000 people died from radiation related illnesses. Unfortunately, the US decided to drop a second bomb three days later.

On August 9, 1945, a second B-29 "Flying Fortress" named the Bock's Car dropped the plutonium bomb known as "Fat Man" over the city of Nagasaki. This mission was plagued with problems. This plane took off with a small fuel tank. There were several clouds over Nagasaki, making targeting difficult. With no fuel left and a break in the clouds, the decision was made to drop the bomb. It missed by over a mile. The bomb still managed to destroy half the city as well as the near by mountains. Even though the plutonium bomb was more powerful than the uranium bomb, casualties were less because the bomb missed. Instantly, 39,000 people were killed and over 25,000 people were injured [Dyson, 1997]. However, radiation poisoning had only begun. By the end of 1945, it was estimated that 70,000 people died in Nagasaki because of the explosion [Fermi, 1995]."

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The use of nuclear weapons is a serious and devastating business now days. The United States is not the

only country in the world with such weapons. India, Pakistan, China and Russia all have nuclear capabilities.

To use a nuclear device against another country could lead the world into destruction...total destruction.

The situation is Afghanistan is not pretty. What Usama Bin Laden did to the WTC was not pretty either,

but launching a nuclear attack against a country is not going to bring the WTC back or the people who

lost their lives there. Our President's rage and anger must be terrible, yet I feel he must think before he

acts. He must not let that anger and frustration control his abilities to make the right decision for our

world. He must think about our planet. About the billions of innocent people that live here and not just

about the WTC and what happened there. I know revenge is on his mind, but risking world peace and

the destruction of our planet is not the answer.

Let us remember what former president Ronal Reagan said:

" A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, crap. Man, I would hate to think that at this stage of human evolution, we still have to kill kill kill to settle some things. In my opinion, each and every human life is precious and well, I doubt that no innocent will be murdered if nuclear attack is launched. And that's totally unacceptable by me. Of course, I am not Bush so I can not make big ass decision like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Scorbing

The use of nuclear weapons is a serious and devastating business now days. The United States is not the

only country in the world with such weapons. India, Pakistan, China and Russia all have nuclear capabilities.

To use a nuclear device against another country could lead the world into destruction...total destruction.

The situation is Afghanistan is not pretty. What Usama Bin Laden did to the WTC was not pretty either,

but launching a nuclear attack against a country is not going to bring the WTC back or the people who

lost their lives there. Our President's rage and anger must be terrible, yet I feel he must think before he

acts. He must not let that anger and frustration control his abilities to make the right decision for our

world. He must think about our planet. About the billions of innocent people that live here and not just

about the WTC and what happened there. I know revenge is on his mind, but risking world peace and

the destruction of our planet is not the answer.

Let us remember what former president Ronal Reagan said:

" A nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought. "

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the need to clear a few things up:

- The US Civil War was not fought for slavery. It was fought to prevent the secession of the southern states from the Union. Lincoln was far from stupid. He figured that passing the Emancipation Proclamation would entice former southern slaves to turn against their masters. Plus it was the human sensibile thing to do. (As a side note, Britain had abolished slavery decades earlier.)

- For whoever said we dropped an atomic bomb ("not nuclear"), atomic _is_ nuclear. I think you mean atomic as opposed to hydrogen bomb.

- Those who thinks America could suvive a full-scale assault without the aid of its allies are dreaming. We are powerful, but this isolationist bull**** is ridiculous. We all need each other and nothing is gained from "going it alone."

- The US is not a democracy, it is a republic ("and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, etc" - pledge of allegiance). A democracy is where all the citizens vote and decisions are made on those votes. We have a thing called the Electoral Congress (of which Jefferson was a large proponent, because he didn't trust the Commoners to be able to make wise choices in politics, thus the requirements to be a land owner and more to vote at all) which decides who our President is. Thus the whole fiasco in the last Presidential elections.

- If you think the US "defends Democracy" abroad, why did we install the Shah as a puppet ruler in Iran when they had the potential to have a democratic government? (And we wonder why they hate us when we basically tried to rule them remotely by proxy.) Why did we fund death squads in Central America? Do so many Americans just refuse to read this news because it doesn't conform to their ideas of The Land of the Free?? Do they really think that one can't love his country and still be critical of it?

Dunno why I bother writing this, I doubt 90% of the people who write in the thread will even bother to read it.

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is?

My point is that fallacy and ignorance are easily perpetuated in online forums when nobody steps forward to clarify. People read things and assume they're correct, then they reproduce them, then we wonder why so many people have eff'ed up ideas...

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Grappa

I feel the need to clear a few things up:

- The US Civil War was not fought for slavery. It was fought to prevent the secession of the southern states from the Union. Lincoln was far from stupid. He figured that passing the Emancipation Proclamation would entice former southern slaves to turn against their masters. Plus it was the human sensibile thing to do. (As a side note, Britain had abolished slavery decades earlier.)

- For whoever said we dropped an atomic bomb ("not nuclear"), atomic _is_ nuclear. I think you mean atomic as opposed to hydrogen bomb.

- Those who thinks America could suvive a full-scale assault without the aid of its allies are dreaming. We are powerful, but this isolationist bull**** is ridiculous. We all need each other and nothing is gained from "going it alone."

- The US is not a democracy, it is a republic ("and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, etc" - pledge of allegiance). A democracy is where all the citizens vote and decisions are made on those votes. We have a thing called the Electoral Congress (of which Jefferson was a large proponent, because he didn't trust the Commoners to be able to make wise choices in politics, thus the requirements to be a land owner and more to vote at all) which decides who our President is. Thus the whole fiasco in the last Presidential elections.

- If you think the US "defends Democracy" abroad, why did we install the Shah as a puppet ruler in Iran when they had the potential to have a democratic government? (And we wonder why they hate us when we basically tried to rule them remotely by proxy.) Why did we fund death squads in Central America? Do so many Americans just refuse to read this news because it doesn't conform to their ideas of The Land of the Free?? Do they really think that one can't love his country and still be critical of it?

Dunno why I bother writing this, I doubt 90% of the people who write in the thread will even bother to read it.

G

]

1. The reason the states were seceeding from union was because of slavery. The states that wanted slavery left. So by way of that, it was fought over slavery.

2)Its more a democratic-republic. We hold elections to make our choices for people to represent us. There are instances of pure democracy everywhere. Granted....the US started as a republic, but its looking more like a democracy everyday. In essence, the US has a mutated government.

3) The Allies installed the Shah in Iran in order to prevent the Soviets from indirectly controlling Iran's massive oil reserves.

4) about the death squads, there hasn't been any proof out about that...just a lot of speculation. To me it sounds like a conspiracy theory

5) Atomic, fusion, fission, hydrogen, plutonium, uranium bombs are all classified as nuclear bombs. Nuclear isn't one specific bomb, it is a category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Grappa

Do they really think that one can't love his country and still be critical of it?

G

That's the most sensible and meaningful sentence i've heard all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mike11212

Everyone Claims they hate america.

But see what noone on this board seems to understand. America is everyone.

Ah! I get it now! America is everyone, but not everyone is America?

You have say, chinese in your "American" community. So is the chinese in China your brothers and sisters? would you treat them like that? Don't claim things you cannot deliver or prove.

I am not american. Do i look at americans in a different light? No i don't. We're all the same. Maybe because of where i come from where the minorities are always discriminated, it's easier for us to grasp the concept of "one love".

We are brought into this world by chance. ****! it just so happens i was born in Asia and in yellow skin and black hair. It just so ****in happens that YOU, my friends, were borne in white skin and blond hair. Did you have a choice? i sure didn't. Is it a disadvantage? The way things are now, yes it is. Should it be? NO!

Did Americans save the world? NO! WE (collective effort) solved the problem. America is everyone? then why the **** aren't you guys English, French, Russian or Asian?

Do not forget, it takes one more than one historical event to percede another. Therefore we cannot ever claim responsibility of such magnitude. If the rest of the allies didn't pave the way for America, the war would have ended different. If America didn't lay the bombs, the war would have ended different. Nobody took credit away from America. It just makes people mad when we (America is everyone remember?) give ourselves credit. Let people give it to you instead.

And those people who think jealousy is the reason for the hatred in middle east. Let me ask you this, America is more advanced than say, Malaysian. Very much indeed. Do Malaysians hate you? Do Britain hate you? No they don't. Don't you think there's a reason for the middle east reaction towards America? Or did you even bother to explore other perspective.

Each of us will fight for own beliefs, no matter how twisted they might be or seem, just like you. So you're better than everyone else in such a way that you can proudly say YOUR belief is the RIGHT ONE? Well if you can, so can they.

The point is, if we keep being ignorant of "one love", and refuse to understand other people, we will always be endangered AND dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Originally posted by unspec

Well you do live in a democracy, you've had 200 years to change it.

It's been pointed out that you have a HUGE armed force, ready to deal with pretty much anything. There is no need to arm the population.

IMO you really shouldn't be able to have firearms.

--

unspec

Its my opinion if we don't have firearms then the criminals will all think we are helpless. Would you be safe without a firearm unspec? Even Britain is having a problem trying to decrease crime with very restrictive gun laws on the books.

An article from Britain which you may find an interesting read.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm...7%2Fnhand17.xml

More than 160,000 handguns were surrendered to the police. But in the two years after the ban the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported to have been used increased from 2,648 to 3,685 - up 40 per cent. Their use was at its highest level since 1993.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone says the next War will be the most devasting war every nukes, and neutron weapons.

I disagree, Everyone knows life on earth will be wiped out if we have one of those wars, and practically every country has an opposing force with nukes so no one is going to do that.

I think the next war if one will use technology a great deal more

And see the first full use of unarmed mobile weapons, like unmanned jets etc. They already have em just gotta use em =)

Especially since in 2010 Americas Manned/Unmanned (comes with two optiosn) Next generation of Commanche Attack Helicopters will be fully operational. these things will do some major damage.

Also considering in 2004, US Army will test, the first ever public Laser Weapon.

It will be attached to a Jumbo 747 and will be used to fifre upon Missile targets and jet targets. After which it will be implemented for Ground Tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Osiris

Everyone says the next War will be the most devasting war every nukes, and neutron weapons.

I disagree, Everyone knows life on earth will be wiped out if we have one of those wars, and practically every country has an opposing force with nukes so no one is going to do that.

I think the next war if one will use technology a great deal more

And see the first full use of unarmed mobile weapons, like unmanned jets etc. They already have em just gotta use em =)

Especially since in 2010 Americas Manned/Unmanned (comes with two optiosn) Next generation of Commanche Attack Helicopters will be fully operational. these things will do some major damage.

Also considering in 2004, US Army will test, the first ever public Laser Weapon.

It will be attached to a Jumbo 747 and will be used to fifre upon Missile targets and jet targets. After which it will be implemented for Ground Tests.

Although wars in the future will use technology, what if some rogue country such as Iraq or terrorist group gets a hold of a nuclear weapon and detonates it. How would that country and its allies respond to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do the know the probability of a faction group actually being able to assemble a nuclear device or get one is far higher then the media actually lets on.

And even if they did, lets say it was 9/11 except without airplanes they detonated a nuclear weapon. America wouldnt have responded with its own Nuclear Strike, agaisnt afganihstan, which would have done more damage to the earth and Killed hundreds of thousands of innocents. If that situation occured

1. the world would be a worse place

2. America would be no better then the terrorists

3. America wouldnt have world support and would probably have economic sanctions put up agaisnt them.

so you see, the actual threat of nuclear weapons and a nuclear war isnt as great as they claim it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cycle of violence continues, as long as a there have been attacks, revenge is immenient. As long as the cycle continues, peace cannot be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wars lead to death, murder of innocent humans. It gets us no where, destroys the land, and makes it contaminated and unusable for anything. If people can't learn to be mature and not fight, the human race is not really moving forward in my opinion.

Its not only humans that suffer, animals are killed for being around the areas under attack and we end up suffering more from all the wasted natural resources that create harmful gases and destroy the planet more. Its a neat circle we create.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a point of clarification, the actual "crime" of the south was not Slavery. It was succesion from the Union. Granted, the idea was because the North had removed Slavery and the South continued the practice and due to tarrifs (the North was a naval industry while the south was aggriculture), the actual reason the war broke out was the succession from the Union. The North didn't see it as being possible and that such act would be treason, while the South saw it as legit.

"You can't leave the union, cause the union 0wnz j00."

And actually, I wouldn't hold Lincoln as the smartest peanut in the turd. He made several critical mistakes that if had been corrected, the South would've lost from day one (btw, I'm a southerner and even I can see the victory the north had). He had access to heavy firepower technology and declined to use it, he called for overstuffing of cannons when the engineer who created them told him it was too much and ergo, cannons were pretty much one-shot deals.

The South actually had a good chance at winning but due to being cut off from supply lines, this wasn't the greatest chance they had.

As for modern era, the whole "North vs. the South" is ridiculous and just points that people are slackers. "You owe me cause my great grandpappy.." ... I don't owe anything because *I* didn't do anything.

Now, let's add Salt to my post by also acknowledging I'm from Alabama and moved to South Carolina. Am I racist? No. Do I see other races as inferior, no. Do I see America as the ultimate super-power? About as powerful as a bunch of hamsters on LSD.

The problem in our *own* country is poor organization, and I don't mean by what the founding fathers' of my country started. Example: We are taxed each year and are supposed to be taxed fairly, yet last year we had a "surplus" - the congress was happy cause this was spending money, the idiotic part is a "surpluss" means they overtaxed, which thankfully we were relieved with $300-600 dollars back.

As for our foreign actions, we.. are.. stupid. We've stuck our nose in everyone's business and usually we end up with the short end of the stick. We should not play Savior to the world. Yes, we should help where possible. But playing police force for a nation(s) we don't govern is silly.

Anywho, I gabbed enough. Blarg!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.