• Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

> Still don't understand why everyone is so upset over the piffling kilotons
> contained in a single 1940's tech atomic bomb that could be strapped to a
> 1960's missile that we can definitely shoot down with ease.
>
> Assuming the North Koreans can get the damned things work properly.

Today its an ineffective test contained within an underground bunker.
What later? What happens when the develop a more sophisticated nuclear weapon? Or more sophisticated
long-range missiles.

Lets just say in 25 years:
- They have developed a nuclear warhead.
- They have given the designs and materials to the Iranians.
- The Iranians have given the designs and materials to Hamas and Syria.
- The Iranians have given the designs and materials to Venezuela (random pick, pretend).

Now there are three locations within the world that short, medium and long range missiles are
located with nuclear warheads.

This is bad...but what comes next is the real nightmare:

An arms race begins. Saudi Arabia, Israel, South Korea, Mexico and Brazil all start stockpiling
massive armies. They would all be trying to acquire whatever MAD deterrent they could get
their hands on: bio, chemical, nuclear warheads and weapons.

Then, out of the race, the other regional powers start to build up: Turkey, Egypt, Colombia, etc.

The super powers would also need to beef up their forces (S. Koreas new arms buildup would force
China to beef up its forces, same for Venezuela -> U.S).

Now there is a MASSIVE abundance of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons laying around. Countries
like Veneziala, North Korea, Syria, Columbia, etc. all go bust. Thats right, bust. The arms race has allowed
their countries to collapse.

Now what? Thats right, there is now a massive stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons
available for anyone with the right amount of $$$ to pick up.

Next thing you know...Major cities are being destroyed. Millions of lives lost. _THEN_ world war 3 will
start.



The cold war created a massive stockpile of weapons, arms and close-calls. What happens when 10-15 states
are all in the game?

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 7,941
  • Tag points: 14

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

Wow.. Skoe got it right yikes

Everything bad in the economy is now Obama's fault. Every job lost, all the debt, all the lost retirement funds. All Obama. Are you happy now? We all get to blame Obama!
Kemp currently not being responded to until he makes CONCISE posts.
Avogardo and Noir ignored by me for life so people know why I do not respond to them. (Informational)

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

Does that not demand each country not change in government, ideology, and social structure for a quarter of a century?

20 years ago the USA and the USSR were going to kill us all in their crossfire.

10 years ago the former USSR was whoring itself out for the latest Nike shoes and Prada bags and the USA was investing the money from it's second mortgage in WWW.DVDREWINDER.COM

Now the USA has the kind of economy that Reagan used to point at and laugh, Russia owns half the recources on the planet, and the UK  s t i l l  thinks it matters.



These countries may be scary, but never underestimate the people's basic desire to be greedy, overpaid, covetous, prideful, and lazy, with a blowjob every weekend from a prostitute who you're fairly certain used to go to school with your kids to boot.

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

> These countries may be scary, but never underestimate the people's basic
> desire to be greedy, overpaid, covetous, prideful, and lazy, with a blowjob
> every weekend from a prostitute who you're fairly certain used to go to
> school with your kids to boot.

Todays Lesson: People can be bought.

Acquiring nuclear weapons right now is almost impossible.
What happens when its the cool thing to have?

> piffling kilotons contained in a single 1940's tech atomic bomb that could be
> strapped to a 1960's missile that we can definitely shoot down

Also look at it this way: War breaks out. The north ravages the south, but the south
(and its allies) eventually prevail. What if the north sees the war coming, equips a couple
of its tin-can submarines with a couple of nuclear weapons, travels on over to two
major U.S. ports, surfaces, and detonates.

Sure, it wouldn't be efficient. But what we would call inefficiencies, the victims would
call an attack. A morale crushing, harbor radiating, innocent killing, economy halting,
attack...

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

That would not crush our morale

That would make us sort of peeved. A kind of homer simpson, "die die die" rampaging stomp em after their dead peeved.

Winning a 3 year war and occupying a conquered nation with a 5% casualty rate, now THAT apparently breaks us

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Skoe
  • Skoe
  • Player
  • Offline
  • Posts: 15

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

> Winning a 3 year war and occupying a conquered nation with a 5% casualty rate, now THAT apparently breaks us

Ergh?

What war are you talking about?

Morbo: Morbo can't understand his teleprompter. He forgot how you say that letter that looks like a man with a hat.
Linda: It's a 't'. It goes "tuh".
Morbo: Hello, little man. I will destroy you!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

Iraq

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

58 Reply by Little Paul (edited by Little Paul 01-Jun-2009 19:52:56)

  • Posts: 2,163

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

You cannot stop a 60' missile unless you know where it will strike or if you have the proper defense ready in the area. but they have a 70' missile if smart detonate the nuke in the stratosphere. No way to stop it, and their countries econ wouldn't change but ours would

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

59 Reply by ☭ Fokker (edited by ☭ Fokker 02-Jun-2009 16:48:46)

  • Posts: 2,151
  • Tag points: 4

Re: Obama: Harder Than Bush?

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
> Todays Lesson: People can be bought.
Acquiring nuclear weapons right now is almost impossible.
What happens when its the cool thing to have? <

You mean like now? tongue
Look: KJI is not the idiot some governments would have us believe, KJI knows that ANY offensive gesture or manuver will result in NK being horribly, horribly raped by large mushrooms. Same goes for Ahma-whats-his-name and Iran. Same goes for anyone; the mindset that A-bombed Japan, twice, still exists and still works, that's why nobody dares do anything more that appear threatening.


> Also look at it this way: War breaks out. The north ravages the south, but the south
(and its allies) eventually prevail. What if the north sees the war coming, equips a couple
of its tin-can submarines with a couple of nuclear weapons, travels on over to two
major U.S. ports, surfaces, and detonates. <

Hah! Try this: War breaks out, nobody is surprised because we've all been waiting for it and have had the absolute latest in military hardware just outside of their territory since the 60's.

> Sure, it wouldn't be efficient. But what we would call inefficiencies, the victims would
call an attack. A morale crushing, harbor radiating, innocent killing, economy halting,
attack... <

The only way that would work is if the Yanks are still arrogant enough to let their toys do all of the work, like in that WW2 sub vs top-of-the-line sub excercise.

"So, it's defeat for you, is it? Someday I must meet a similar fate..."

0 Dislike 0 Post Points