Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok...


W**FS EE-ZZ GLOBAL SAFETY SURVEY.TM

http://microscopiq.com/images/mushroom-clown-ps3.jpg


How many of those "Nuclear Bombs" does it actually take to blow the world as we know it, into a "Katillion" bits


One or two Thousand ☐


One or Two dozen ☐


Yes please x 2 with fries ☐


Russia & America have cut theirs WMD to around 1500 each ( is that true ? )


No ☐


No ☐


Not yes ☐


Does it actually make the world safer


No ☐


No ☐


No no ☐


Or is this "spin, spin " as it were ?


Yes ☐


Yes ☐


Opposite of No ☐

____________________________________



In the event of global NUCLEAR MELTDOWN


I would ( complete the phrase )........



A. ....... my own Mother with an axe


B. Kill the neighbors cats because my..........said so


C. Meditate & then............my own Mother with an axe


D. only be laughing in the face of.......









W**F

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/10605-nuclear-proliferation/
Share on other sites

3000 nukes is more than enough to extinguish most terrestrial life on the planet.


Modern nuclear warheads have a short shelf life because natural radioactive decay makes them unpredictable and/or unstable.


The warheads, known as 'pits,' have to be removed from missiles, dismantled, molten down, reprocessed (i.e. purified from fission products), reengineered and reassembled - a very expensive and dangerous process.


Economic reality has probably encouraged both sides to adopt a more cost-effective policy of MAD'ness.

Yes...


I thought so , thankyou HAL


But still, blown to a "Katillion" bits though


Oh & how many "Quitillion, Pitillon, Trillion" Dollars are they better off ?


(Like it makes any friggin diffo)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg/150px-Fat_man.jpg



W**F

Perhaps the number of nuclear weapons required to knock out the enemy (putting it mildly) takes into account what percentage of those weapons may fail, in a worst case scenario, due to factors such as missle defence systems, technical problems, people refusing to press button & espionage.

> How many of those "Nuclear Bombs" does it actually

> take to blow the world as we know it, into a

> "Katillion" bits


You'd need at least a quatzillion of em.


> Given that Russia & America have cut theirs to

> around 1500 each ( is that true ? )


Dunno.


> Does it actually make the world safer


Probably not.


> Or is this "spin, spin " as it were ?


Probably.


PS. One of those handy "WOOF Multiple Choice Survey" thingys would have come in useful here...for those of us that don't know the answers.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ..are we talking about proliferation or

> non-proliferation here? Just thought I'd ask.


____________________________________________________


Hair..


well then the lack of it


Whilst you recover from the "Brazilian"


Read my edited OP survey



*Oooooo eyes water*



W**F


Poor pussy !


http://theclam.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/full-brazilian-wax.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Unless we don't fly I don't think we can be too critical of the authorities.  
    • In 2016 London City Airport began using concentrated flight paths. When there's a predominantly westerly wind, incoming aircraft approach from East London (north of the River). When there's a predominantly Easterly wind, incoming aircraft approach the airport from the West: circling through Forest Hill, Dulwich, Vauxhall, Tower Hamlets, Docklands. This latter flight path affects many of us in South East London. https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/london-city-airport-concentrated-flight-paths The planes going into City are often below 2,000 ft, so very noisy. Sometimes we have incoming Heathrow at the same time, flying higher. The early flights that I hear e.g. 04:30 are incoming to Heathrow. They are scheduled to land at 05:30 but are 'early'. Apparently the government allows a percentage of flights to arrive early and late (but these are now established as regular occurrences, informally part of the schedule). IMHO Londoners are getting very poor political representation on this issue. Incredible that if you want to complain about aircraft noise, you're supposed to contact the airport concerned! Preposterous and designed solely in favour of aviation expansion.
    • Yet another recommendation for Jafar. Such a nice guy, really reliable and fair. He fixed a problem with our boiler and then incredibly kindly made two more visits to replace a different part at no extra cost. 
    • I didn't have any problems with plane noise until city airport started flying planes to and from about 5-8 minutes apart from 5.30 am or  6 am,  and even with ear plugs and double glazing I am woken at about 6 well before I usually would wake  up. I have lived here since 1986 and it is relatively recently that the planes have been flying far too low over East dulwich. I very much doubt that they are headinbg to Heathrow or from Heathrow. As the crow flies we are much , MUCH closer to City Airport than Heathrow or Gatwick. I even saw one flying so low you could see all the windows, when I was in Peckham Rye Park.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...