namelesstavern.net

Gidan wrote:I cant believe that even a half way intelligent person would even think that a nuke could be the way to go. I couldn't think of a worse thing to do.

Sure lets launch a nuke at them, then prey that they dont launch one back at us, prey that no other country seeing this feels threatened and decides to take action and fire at us. The next thing that happens is nuclear war, everyone is dead.

Quick question for ya, Gidan: what countries have the capability to launch nukes at the U.S.?

Any country or group who can get their hands on a bomb, and takes advantage of the completely lax port security to smuggle it into the country.

-Arlos

Don't need to smuggle nuke into port. Load it onto boat in Mexico, take boat out into neutral waters outside LA, dump it overboard, once it's down at the botom, detonate it.

Tsunami that it will cause will take out most of california

Ganzo wrote:Don't need to smuggle nuke into port. Load it onto boat in Mexico, take boat out into neutral waters outside LA, dump it overboard, once it's down at the botom, detonate it.

Tsunami that it will cause will take out most of california

Most likely radiation riddled water at that... ouch.

Arlos wrote:Any country or group who can get their hands on a bomb, and takes advantage of the completely lax port security to smuggle it into the country.

-Arlos

Launching a nuke is distinctly different from smuggling one into the country.

wouldnt it take more than 1 to make a wave of that magnitude?

i recall something like the power of several thousand nukes equate to the power of the quake that triggered the big one recently.

wouldn't nuke cause a quake in that already seismicly unstable region
at least that was my line of reasoning

No, probably not. Not to mention, the type of plate boundry along California is completely different than that in Indonesia. Along here it's a transform boundry, which means the plates are sliding along each other horizontally. When they go, it can create a lot of side-to-side ground movement, which can damage stuff on land, sure, but does absolutely nothing towards creating tsunamis. The indonesian fault that caused the December tsunami moves vertically. When it went a whole section of sea floor jumped up by > 10 meters, which is a huge movement, over a big area, which is what generated such a massive wave.

-Arlos

I think we need to get some seriously powerful allies on our side before we engaged a nuclear solution to the middle east but I have no doubt the effect would be positive. Those people would string up anyone they thought involved in terrorism if they were threatened with another nuclear attack.

Nukes aren't the only way we could solve global terrorism.... I really believe we should step up the amount of pain and suffering inflicted during conventional warfare.

Saudis want to bomb us or london? Fine... We're gonna blow up your favorite 1000 year old mosque during ramadan. The terrorists came from "X" town... No problem. We'll pull up 20 miles away and shell the place into oblivion. Fuck non combatant casualties.

They don't care about blowing up innocents in the western world, so lets blow up 10 times as many of them in retaliation.

They will learn fear and it will drive them to obediance.

Oh... someone mentioned coating bullets in pigs fat...

Thats a great idea, but its been done, kind of...


General Black Jack Pershing was hunting radical islamic terrorists back in the early 20th century on the Phillipines....

He caught a bunch of them and had his men line them up and drenched them all in pigs blood and coated the bullets in pigs blood. He then executed all but one of them and let the last guy go free to tell his buddies.

The story I guess spread through the arab world and had quite and impact.

That the kind of shit we need to be doing.

Arlos- I'm glad i'm wrong than

Ralph- samesolution i always said, terror for terror, see who got more guts to outlast

Any group that has the finacial power to buy a nuke, has the power to use it. Do you honestly think it would be that difficult to get one into this country?

So Ralph, you belive that if they kill innoncent people here we should kill innocent people there? How are we any beter then they are then?

Gidan wrote:Any group that has the finacial power to buy a nuke, has the power to use it. Do you honestly think it would be that difficult to get one into this country?

Actually, most of the countries that have nuclear technology do not have the capacity to fire one at the U.S. In the event that there was an actual exchange of nuclear weapons, annihilation is not the logical conclusion.

Gidan wrote:Any group that has the finacial power to buy a nuke, has the power to use it. Do you honestly think it would be that difficult to get one into this country?

So Ralph, you belive that if they kill innoncent people here we should kill innocent people there? How are we any beter then they are then?

see thats the great thing about being me....


I cut the moralizing BS out of my logical decision making process. I don't care if we are better or worse than them. I only care to win.

If they kill 2000 innocent civilians, we blow up their water supply and kill 100,000, or we drop a small nuke and take out a city.

These people understand and respect two things: fear and pain. We need to cause much more of both than they have caused to us. So far we have done to this a certain degree but we need to do more. The article I posted shows the very beginnings of a change in attitude in the muslim community.

US is known among Arab world as "Big mouth with a small stick", untill it changes, terrorism is here to stay

Ganzo wrote:wouldn't nuke cause a quake in that already seismicly unstable region
at least that was my line of reasoning

You must have some sort of retarded 10-year-old's understanding of plate tectonics and nuclear weapons

Ganzo wrote:US is known among Arab world as "Big mouth with a small stick", untill it changes, terrorism is here to stay

No, we are pretty much thought of as Israel's lapdog.

The Middle Easterners have been killing themselves for thousands of years. Before Islam. Before Judaism. My guess is we'll still be looking at these problems 1000 years from now, unfortunately.

mappatazee wrote:

Ganzo wrote:wouldn't nuke cause a quake in that already seismicly unstable region
at least that was my line of reasoning

You must have some sort of retarded 10-year-old's understanding of plate tectonics and nuclear weapons

I'm sorry that my memory of what I learned in 9th grade geography was lacking, while I was having a discussion. I made a wrong assumption, which Arlos corrected. I'm glad that I was able to entertain you.

As soon as you start participating in grown up conversations, we'll be able to see what age of retardation your understanding of any subject is at.

Thank you.
Have a nice day.