"Nuclear War"

I was reading this Nostradomas (mispelled) book in the checkstand. It said that on June 16, some bad shit goes down. That is pretty eerie...
Duck and Cover.
 
Forget Nostradumus!!! His writings are so obsure and open-ended they can be (and are) intrepreted a 1000 different ways!!! After the attacks last year the net came alive with how he "predicted" the WTC terror attacks....give me a break! How come no one warned about them prior tp the attacks??

And how come there are no specific dates, times, etc.?

In short it's a bunch of hookum!

As far as India and Pakistan goes, it should frighten everybody. Any regional conflict there could easily become a nightmare for the whole world. The thing that really bugs me is the fact that these countries can't even feed themselves, yet they have nuclear weapons! What a joke!

I guess I will keep drinking Blatz and hope for the best!

:puke: :puke: :puke:
 
I worry that every other country is gonna get an itchy trigger finger with nukes, but if these two nations are hell bent on taking each other out, then fine. For once, I'd like to see the U.S. stay out of it.
 
Its not like he started the precedant... that goes back to FDR wanting us to be the world's Robocop. Lots of countries run us down because they get their info from a media that is a puppet of an autocrat. So sometimes their opinion is skewed, and sometimes it is justified. I always laugh when we get bagged on as a nation, but when those same countries need us, they jump on the Batphone.
 
the USA are damned if they do and damned if they don't get involved,its all about politics and money.
i wouldnt mind if they nuked each other except for the fact that good old soft australia will take in half these people that are left refugees!!!!(well thats if any people survive)
 
I do agree that America does get a bad wrap we don't deserve. I do not like bushes policy. I think he's a moron. people only like him and support him because of sept. 11. Thats how it is each time there's a national disaster or a war the popularity of the pres goes way up. NEwsweek did a poll and found out the majority Doesn't think he's doing a good job in the middle east.
-Jono-
 
Originally posted by Johnny Ace
Its not like he started the precedant... that goes back to FDR wanting us to be the world's Robocop. Lots of countries run us down because they get their info from a media that is a puppet of an autocrat. So sometimes their opinion is skewed, and sometimes it is justified. I always laugh when we get bagged on as a nation, but when those same countries need us, they jump on the Batphone.
Yeah, Bush perpetuates it, but it started long before him. If it's part of a United Nations peacekeeping thing, then sure, get involved, but otherwise stay out of it, because while some people will appreciate and ask for the help, inevitably one side would be helped at the expense of another, ultimately creating new enemies. So yes, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, but I think in the long run, it would be to the U.S.'s advantage if they took less of a role to avoid gaining new enemies...we only have to look at Sept. 11 to see that new enemies could bring more headaches and fear in the long run.

Of course, I'm not even American, so take my opinion for what it's worth.
 
I was talking to my girlfriend about this thread and she made a good point. If India and Pakistan go buck wild with nukes, the whole globe will likely feel the fallout. I'm not talking political, but actual nuclear fall out. The only thing I keep picturing is Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns where there is nuclear winter over Gotham... scary.

It's the same old with the UN... everybody else decides on the resolution and the US is stuck holding the bag to enforce it.
 
Well, technically, and I'm no expert, but do any of us actually know what KIND of nuclear weapons either of those countries have? The reason I ask is because "newer" nuclear warheads place more of an emphasis on disabling infrastructure than on destroying human life.

I just point this out because should anything happen, I don't think much of the world will be affected by it. Yes, we live in a global community (nowadays more so than ever before), but its highly unlikely people in Chicago will have to start hording canned goods. Of course, I don't plan on moving east of India anytime soon, but...
 
The reason I ask is because "newer" nuclear warheads place more of an emphasis on disabling infrastructure than on destroying human life.

Hmm, you got me on that one. I know the neutron bomb is supposed to do the opposite... leave infrastructure intact, but evaporate all living matter.

I wonder if their defense ministries even know what they are doing when they build these things.
 
good comments people,there's no easy answer to getting peace all over, no country is ever going to be entirely happy,but australia being a pretty small nation we have to back usa and i am happy with the support australia has been giving!!!
 
The great thing about living in England is that noone gives a crap........its all football and the ability of david beckham. Back in the eighties the threat of nuclear war made people very uneasy(look at all the bands who sang about nuclear war) Lots of television programmes dealt with survival after a nuclear attack and lots of people had shelters. Nowadays with Russia becoming less of a super power the fear has gone...I just hope it doesn't take a war to bring it back:confused:
 
One has to assume that neither Pakistan or India has "Neutron Bombs". I am doubtful if America or Russia even has 'em. There was talk about this back in Reagan's heyday. The theory was that it would be less explosive but more radioactive. The idea was to kill everyone without doing as much damage to the infrastructure. I don't think they ever got into production on these things.

I did a paper in college on Nuclear war, and one thing that I do remember very clearly, is that cataclysmic global changes could result from even a "limited" nuclear scenario. At the time the USSR and USA had thousands upon thousands of bombs aimed at one another. If I remember correctly, if only 3% of those were to be exploded in certain areas, our extinction was a definite possibility.

Made for some fun research, let me tell you.

This is why I feel that if we have to root out Saddam, so be it. There may be some terrible loss of life, but what happens when these weapons get in the wrong hands? Instead of 3000 people dead, it could be 3 million. And it could just as easily be Paris, London, or Moscow.

I wish everyone could see that!

When the fanatics don't care about themselves, and "God" is telling them to kill the unbelievers, anything goes. It's a scary world out there children.

I don't want to be seen as a warmonger, but these are some strange times, we are living. I don't believe that we should all "fall in line" with the President, and back him 100% of the time. However, we have to assume he has a whole lot more information in his hands to make these decisions!

I just hope there is no "next time", like a lot of people are saying. It could be much, much worse!

Enough to make ya wanna

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:
 
Nuclear Winter sounds like a cool metal song or band... however, none of us want to live it. Don't worry about being seen as a war monger, Vomit. If we have to rain holy hell on the middle east in order to prevent the world from turning into Mad Max, so be it.