By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Nuclear Proliferation is not the way to go

Even Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs thinks the amount we were trying to spend on nuclear weapons recently was ludicrous and just plain unnecessary.

Can you blow up the world 10x over, or 20x over? That was essentially the conundrum we faced.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
Even Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs thinks the amount we were trying to spend on nuclear weapons recently was ludicrous and just plain unnecessary.

Can you blow up the world 10x over, or 20x over? That was essentially the conundrum we faced.

 

I am not for wasting money, if we can destroy the world 3x over, then ok, let's stop making weapons.

But unless is cost a lot to maintain those weapons, I find no reason to get rid of the ones we have though.



TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Even Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs thinks the amount we were trying to spend on nuclear weapons recently was ludicrous and just plain unnecessary.

Can you blow up the world 10x over, or 20x over? That was essentially the conundrum we faced.

 

I am not for wasting money, if we can destroy the world 3x over, then ok, let's stop making weapons.

But unless is cost a lot to maintain those weapons, I find no reason to get rid of the ones we have though.

Hopefully, in order for the US to maintain glory, freedom, property, and security, and protect us pansy nations like Canada and switzerland from the evil zerg hordes, the US doesn't need so many nukes. And you never know, maybe if someone retarded, like Palin, was president, a nuclear war would start arising from her experience with Russia, and we would use our nukes, thus ending existence. If there were, say, 95% less nukes, then moscow and ny and some others would be blown up. Peanuts, at least the people in the countryside would get to live.



 

 

im_sneaky said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Even Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs thinks the amount we were trying to spend on nuclear weapons recently was ludicrous and just plain unnecessary.

Can you blow up the world 10x over, or 20x over? That was essentially the conundrum we faced.

 

I am not for wasting money, if we can destroy the world 3x over, then ok, let's stop making weapons.

But unless is cost a lot to maintain those weapons, I find no reason to get rid of the ones we have though.

Hopefully, in order for the US to maintain glory, freedom, property, and security, and protect us pansy nations like Canada and switzerland from the evil zerg hordes, the US doesn't need so many nukes. And you never know, maybe if someone retarded, like Palin, was president, a nuclear war would start arising from her experience with Russia, and we would use our nukes, thus ending existence. If there were, say, 95% less nukes, then moscow and ny and some others would be blown up. Peanuts, at least the people in the countryside would get to live.

 

If you expect a country to proactively reduce there ability to wage war, your living in a dream world.

The only way the USA will reduce it's war machine, is when we can no longer afford it. It will never happen due to good will towards others.



I think many peoples train of thought is that they don't want nukes, but they have to have them as a deterrent because other countries have nukes and will keep them anyway.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
im_sneaky said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
Even Bush's appointee to Secretary of Defense Robert Gibbs thinks the amount we were trying to spend on nuclear weapons recently was ludicrous and just plain unnecessary.

Can you blow up the world 10x over, or 20x over? That was essentially the conundrum we faced.

 

I am not for wasting money, if we can destroy the world 3x over, then ok, let's stop making weapons.

But unless is cost a lot to maintain those weapons, I find no reason to get rid of the ones we have though.

Hopefully, in order for the US to maintain glory, freedom, property, and security, and protect us pansy nations like Canada and switzerland from the evil zerg hordes, the US doesn't need so many nukes. And you never know, maybe if someone retarded, like Palin, was president, a nuclear war would start arising from her experience with Russia, and we would use our nukes, thus ending existence. If there were, say, 95% less nukes, then moscow and ny and some others would be blown up. Peanuts, at least the people in the countryside would get to live.

 

If you expect a country to proactively reduce there ability to wage war, your living in a dream world.

The only way the USA will reduce it's war machine, is when we can no longer afford it. It will never happen due to good will towards others.

What? USA helps people out of goodwill? That's news to me.

 



 

 

im_sneaky said:

What? USA helps people out of goodwill? That's news to me. 

Your right. America should call in all of the loans & aid that it gave Europe after WW2 for the reconstruction. Adding in interest, it should fix our entire national debt.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

mrstickball said:
im_sneaky said:

What? USA helps people out of goodwill? That's news to me.

Your right. America should call in all of the loans & aid that it gave Europe after WW2 for the reconstruction. Adding in interest, it should fix our entire national debt.

 

 

You forgot Japan. You know, the ones that declared war on us, and then after we beat the shit out of them we rebuilt there country.



It's a fair arguement.

The worry is however that some people having nukes will lead to everyone having nukes.

Which then becomes Nuclear WW1 eventually.



Why don't we have energy shields protecting out cities from nukes yet? I want answers!