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

    • I just wanted to post for all my neighbours a recommendation of Niko, the wonderful plumber who works locally. Niko has done work for me over the years, including large and small jobs. He recently replaced four radiators in my house which have helped us really be warm for the first time! I recommend Niko so whole heartedly because (1) he is completely straight forward and will advise you not to do something / a cheaper solution, if that is what is best for you; and (2) he is one of the kindest and most honest people I have ever known. He goes the extra mile to sort out problems, particularly urgent ones.   
    • Scaremongering - there is very little vacant land in East Dulwich available as sites for building 9 storey buildings so this is rather hypothetical. It could even be said the occasional taller, modern building breaks up the monotony of Victorian terraced housing.
    • This is simply untrue. The area is not 2/3 storeys maximum. Hambledon Court is on the other side of tracks from the Jewson site on Burrow Rd, is 8 storeys, and is barely known (let alone bothersome) to most people in East Dulwich. Felbridge House, Petworth House etc on the opposite side of the station from the new development are all 5 storeys tall. East Dulwich Charter (which neighbours the new development) is itself 4-5 storeys (depending on which block you're talking about). What's more, Hambledon Court was finished in about 1978 iirc and no-one has built anything similar around here since then - so the "slippery slope" "genie in the bottle" argument doesn't work either. You can't simultaneously argue that Southwark is too slow in approving new construction but also suggest this will lead to a flood of new high-rise housing! At current rates of approval, we can expect our next 8 storey building to arrive in...2072!
    • I checked - the Hanway Street place was Mandeer - it moved to New Oxford Street I think and was replaced by Hakkasan - very different prices. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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