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

    • So irrespective of the scandal how do you think that Rayner did as Housing Secretary?  
    • The Labour astro-turfers are out in force on this thread aren't they!
    • I don't really care about political sleaze in this  i am more concerned about thjle ability to run.a country without running it into the ground. Currently, labout seem to be heading straight towards the rocks, ignoring the warning blasts from the economic ighthouse. 
    • Which is exactly why Rayner had to go - don't be the sleaze attack dog and then not keep your own house in order - the really shocking fact is she didn't go the moment this came to light because she knew what advice, and the advice to seek proper tax expertise that was given to her in writing by the very people she was trying to throw under the bus - she clearly thought she might be able to spin her way out of it. When you look at the facts, the advice she was given and when and her behaviour in the last few days it has been scandalous and just shows the contempt for the public intelligence some politicians have. Interesting to see a very unscientific vox pop on BBC News last night but a lot of her own constituents seem to want rid of her as well and to be honest if you have to lose your cabinet role for this breach of the rules then you should probably lose your seat too. That is the hypocrisy here and why a lot of people don't like politicians because they're all the same.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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