Nuclear War?! Right now?
- Thread starter Josep
- Start date
2fast4u
New member
yup, bush has treatened china, north corea, iraq, etc. to use nuclear warfare against them. :angry: holy shit, i feel a controversial topic coming up but this is absolutely INCREDIBLE 
issed: !! it shows that the usa is willing to use any way possible if it helps its goals. the problem is that in a nuclear war, there are no winners - believe me here (u too, sy! ). if this wont be stopped we have stepped nearer to the end of the world as we know it.
issed: !! it shows that the usa is willing to use any way possible if it helps its goals. the problem is that in a nuclear war, there are no winners - believe me here (u too, sy! ). if this wont be stopped we have stepped nearer to the end of the world as we know it.
Last edited:
I would rather see America, as the only country with nuclear weapons, then any other country, i.e Iraq, China, India. And there will not be a nuclear war, there are to much to lose, but USA are the only country that can have nuclear weapons without me being worried about it.
2fast4u
New member
Remote said:
dont be silly dude. once the first nuke is dropped the story is over. there is russia, india, pakistan (!), india (!!) and more. i cant c why u think nukes r save in the us with this news right before ur eyes. bush is fucking insane if he only thinks about using them.
Being a US citizen of voting age, I would like to say I didn't vote for Bush and I curse everyone who did. Being an environmentalist, I am very angry about his policies, especially after Sept. 11th. It seems congress decided that event would turn them into a bunch of Bush yes-men. Hell... if Bush doesn't care about the environment... why wouldn't get care about ruining it more with nuclear weapons? Bush just wants to start wars, because that might be the only way he will get re-elected. Are politicians so corrupt they would resort to senselessly wrecking the lives of innocent people? Bush... yes. Perhaps others also?
OP
Josep
eyerun4phun
- Thread Starter
- #7
Couldn't agree more, The bush admin. is full of it, they can't hide behind the whole "fight on terrorism" and make it look like we are the bad guys fighting off the evil. What was one of the first things that the bush admin. did when they took control? Take 500million bucks from the e.p.a.(environmental protection agency) protecting our environment is a good thing, it keeps us living longer Bush admin. is just compenstating for themsevles with big business coporations, and they get richer, and as most unknowing people in the world get more polluted, most people i encounter don't have a clue what the Bush admin. has done to the e.p.a. and our future environment, he's a pycho and a greedy bastard, and its sad to have him ruling the U.S.A.
Bush admin. is just compenstating for themsevles with big business coporations, and they get richer, and as most unknowing people in the world get more polluted, most people i encounter don't have a clue what the Bush admin. has done to the e.p.a. and our future environment, he's a pycho and a greedy bastard, and its sad to have him ruling the U.S.A.
2fast4u said:
Who is being silly? Only two nuclear bombs has ever been used in war, first and last time. The # is probaly a lot higher for testing but lets face facts - more incidents have occured with nuclear power plants...Do you recognize the frase... It is so unlikely that it never happened... If you do, good for you, and if you don't... Nuclear weapons are used to demonstrate power, they were constructed for use in war but after they destroyed Hiroshima, Japan in 1964...
Correction in 1945 their destructive powers were shown to the world. All countires and goverments are aware of the threat, but they do not intend to use them against each other. The only problem with nuclear weapons is that wanna-be super nations, I am very confident in the fact that you can all figure out who they are, try to show thier powers by developing nuclear weapons.
American president Gerorge Bush is not saying that he is going to use nuclear weapons, the congress would newer give him a go on that one, it would probaly be neccesary with a unamyous vote - all in favor, for him to send a tiny missil anywhere. The US has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, a lot bigger then the russian counterpart which is second biggest. The reaming countries have small nuclear arsenals and should there for not be taken as a real threat, with Iraq being the capital exception. War today isn't the same it was fifty years ago, they fought with guns, we fight with money.
If country A ensists on developing and keeping nuclear weapons country B is going to make sure that they can't countinue to do so. With the risk of insulting others, Iraq, India, Pakistan, North Corea and China have no reason to keep a nuclear arsenal, and should not be trusted to keep them. India and China have the largest population in the world but are a very small part of cunsumption, 10 % of all people consume 80 % of all merchendise. They are not a economical super powers nor warfare ones... Iraq, Pakistan have their own problems and should take care of thier people instead of spending billions of dollars on research, imagine how many camels they could buy for the enormous amount of money the have spent on nuclear weapons.
And not to mention the threat they impose if they were to come in the hands of terrorists, which all come from a certain point of the world and all have one thing in common - religion... The only country I would trust my life to is the US, Russia is very close to being safe on me scale, they other countries do not have the security needed for safe keeping.
If something were to go off, Houston, we have a problem...
2fast4u
New member
josep: fully agree dude. but we r getting off-topic. but azi is absolutely right. the war is a way to get elected, no doubt there. that is a reason why the war is going on so long. however the us of nuclear bombs is something no one can even IMAGINE! whoever would support that, he or she must be insane or just not aware wot that means to ppl!
2fast4u
New member
do u believe in santa too? it seems like the awarness how destructive nukes are has been fading rapidly since the cold war if over. they were not build only to demonstrate power, do u think the cold war was just about impressing?
btw hiroshima was in 1945, not 64 ...
bush has treatened to bomb these countries with nuclear weapons. do i need to say more? congress has approved every instance of this imperialistic war and plus he doesnt even need the approval anymore since he is already granted all powers.
hear hear, then tell me: who - in ur opinion - HAS a reason to keep nuclear weapons??
issed: <zyn>the usa bcoz they need to defend themselves against all the evil countries in the world he fight against freedom and democracy??</zyn> issed: sorry but thats bullshit royale. there is no way any country could justify bearing any weapons of mass destruction.ill take that as a joke and ignore it
every day u find more reasons to trust the us, eh??
lain2: open ur eyes.concluding i have a feeling u r taking this threat way too easily. the danger that is coming from nuclear warfare is not to imagine and may never, ever be underestimated. u shouldnt be blind against wot a country that calls itself good is doing. so far, my thoughts.
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
the us may hav the largest stockpile of it, but 20 is the most you ll need to bring most nations (i would imagine the us would fall under this catergory) to its knees. radiation from that 20 would be able to take out even more. that being said, even china has enough to enter a nuke war, and enough to devastate a superpower.
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
2fast4u said:
not necessaraily. a us vs pakistan war (just an example guys) would result in pakistan completely removed from the face of the earth, while the us probably losing a few major cities. nukes are extremely powerful, but think of them as large-city-and-surrounding-area removers.
but thats not my point. some people (like good old dubya bush) seem to feel that the us is invincible behind their large stockpile of nukes.
pj64er
PJ64 Lubba
2fast4u said:
true. i was thinking of major nuclear powers like (gulp!) the us and russia. the thought alone gives me the creeps
u've gotta point. if the us so much as move a nuke out of its own airspace, russia will be down its throat faster than u can say 'Hiroshima'.
RatTrap
GODLIKE
You know who is to blame though for all the countries with nukes?.. SONY!!!.. PS2 is the DEVIL!!!.. it's how the cheapest missile guiding system in the world.. and it should be bannd.. only i should have one.. bcoz we all know i'm such a nice and thoughtfull guy ..
:inlove: love n peace!..
..:inlove: love n peace!..
flow``
flow``
sort of an ironic topic.. seeings how we just had a little classroom debate in world civ about WWII and the nuclear warheads, and a little breifing about the cold war.
anyway.. personally, i would love to see clinton back in office. just from looking at bush, you can tell he's a laid back cowboy in a nice suite with all his advisors kissing his ass. i think clinton had much more sense of what needs to be done, and how to do it.
as far as any use of nukes.. i see it highly unlikely, but not impossible. sure, the us might be "the strongest country in the world", but that means BS when a nuke takes out DC and the country is in havoc. one country dropping 1 nuke would create worldwide chaos, mass gathering of allied countries, and overnight have WW3 on our hands. surely politicians aren't that stupid, and i find their "oh, we can nuke you if we have justified reasons" shit as just a politcal bluff to get their way.
i feel the UN needs to step into play somewhere and tell bush to slow his role, since he's literlally turning into a dictator and using the "War on terror" as some coverup for other little schemes he probably has going on the flip side.
anyway.. personally, i would love to see clinton back in office. just from looking at bush, you can tell he's a laid back cowboy in a nice suite with all his advisors kissing his ass. i think clinton had much more sense of what needs to be done, and how to do it.
as far as any use of nukes.. i see it highly unlikely, but not impossible. sure, the us might be "the strongest country in the world", but that means BS when a nuke takes out DC and the country is in havoc. one country dropping 1 nuke would create worldwide chaos, mass gathering of allied countries, and overnight have WW3 on our hands. surely politicians aren't that stupid, and i find their "oh, we can nuke you if we have justified reasons" shit as just a politcal bluff to get their way.
i feel the UN needs to step into play somewhere and tell bush to slow his role, since he's literlally turning into a dictator and using the "War on terror" as some coverup for other little schemes he probably has going on the flip side.
2fast4u
New member
the country preaches freedom and democracy without practicing it (reminds me of skool
) ... its really ironic. everyone living in the us should be able to confirm wot u just wrote. however, the un needs to give up its solidarity with the usa and form a front against the imperialistic plans of bush and his henchmen. its obvious that he is willing to use EVERYthing possible to reach his goals.
DuDe
Emu64 Staff
I don`t see the whole point of the debate. Any country that has nukes (and that`s about half of Europe`s countries), has a nuclear "hitlist", it`s obvious. The problem is, that some asshole from the US security offices was dumb enough to leak the US list out. There`s probably a lot of beheading going on now at the Pentagon.