Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_...7Cq1tLisqvMWM0F Hopefully this will work out itself out. I read somewhere that it would only take the launching of 20 nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 It means that North Korea wants more sh-- and are going to try to blackmail everyone into giving it to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_...7Cq1tLisqvMWM0F Hopefully this will work out itself out. I read somewhere that it would only take the launching of 20 nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth for good. Generally it means that nuclear talks have broken down between North Korea and the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070322/ap_on_...7Cq1tLisqvMWM0F Hopefully this will work out itself out. I read somewhere that it would only take the launching of 20 nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth for good. The same thing it means as the last couple dozen times talks broke down: North Korea was never serious about them, and was only using them as a stalling tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 and was only using them as a stalling tactic. I could see that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I could see that. Congratulations. You're now over-qualified for the position of UN Secretary-General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share Posted March 23, 2007 Congratulations. You're now over-qualified for the position of UN Secretary-General. So are you. ACTUALLY EVERYONE IS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 "I read somewhere that it would only take the launching of 20 nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth for good." That sounds pretty dubious to me. I could see how that might possibly cause conditions so harsh that it might lead to the extinction of the human race but I think that some form of life would certainly survive and over time the planet would recover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 "I read somewhere that it would only take the launching of 20 nuclear weapons to destroy the Earth for good." That sounds pretty dubious to me. I could see how that might possibly cause conditions so harsh that it might lead to the extinction of the human race but I think that some form of life would certainly survive and over time the planet would recover. Ya, I think it could send the earth into a dark age. Certaintly there would be some major reprecussions if the global economy shut down and some areas were cut off from oil, fresh water, and coffee. Extremist movements would grown up, migrations would take place and wars would follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Ya, I think it could send the earth into a dark age. Certaintly there would be some major reprecussions if the global economy shut down and some areas were cut off from oil, fresh water, and coffee. Extremist movements would grown up, migrations would take place and wars would follow. From 20 nukes? We dropped two on Japan. The long-term local impact was insignificant. What makes you people think 20 worldwide is going to have a devastating global impact? Hell, there've been years when twice as many were tested...and we're still here. Use some common sense, you retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 From 20 nukes? We dropped two on Japan. The long-term local impact was insignificant. What makes you people think 20 worldwide is going to have a devastating global impact? Hell, there've been years when twice as many were tested...and we're still here. Use some common sense, you retards. But, but, but, in one of the Planet of the Apes movies, it only took ONE Armaggedon bomb to destroy the whole planet. If one does it in the movies, shouldn't 20 be more than enough in real life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 But, but, but, in one of the Planet of the Apes movies, it only took ONE Armaggedon bomb to destroy the whole planet. If one does it in the movies, shouldn't 20 be more than enough in real life? Okay, maybe "retards" was a little harsh...but Jesus Christ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 From 20 nukes? We dropped two on Japan. The long-term local impact was insignificant. What makes you people think 20 worldwide is going to have a devastating global impact? Hell, there've been years when twice as many were tested...and we're still here. Use some common sense, you retards. But weren't the two dropped on Japan far less destructive than today's nukes? Still, I agree with you. It would probably take far more than 20 to have a devastating global impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 But weren't the two dropped on Japan far less destructive than today's nukes? Still, I agree with you. It would probably take far more than 20 to have a devastating global impact. Less destructive...probably more radioactive. Depends on the design (and deployment - nukes detonated lower down kick up more debris, obviously), but modern fusion bombs can be made much cleaner than WWII-era fission bombs. I'd sooner worry about bio-weapons (particularly as the North Koreans are rumored to have the smallpox virus) ending the world than nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 But weren't the two dropped on Japan far less destructive than today's nukes? Still, I agree with you. It would probably take far more than 20 to have a devastating global impact. I don't know if you ever saw the old Redd Foxx show across the pond. But every time some poses a question like that to Tom, I feel like Redd trying to stop someone from asking Ray Johnson about his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 I don't know if you ever saw the old Redd Foxx show across the pond. But every time some poses a question like that to Tom, I feel like Redd trying to stop someone from asking Ray Johnson about his name. Is that the old "...but you doesn't have to call me Johnson!" skit? Fitting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 From 20 nukes? We dropped two on Japan. The long-term local impact was insignificant. What makes you people think 20 worldwide is going to have a devastating global impact? Hell, there've been years when twice as many were tested...and we're still here. Use some common sense, you retards. on the plus side, nuclear winter would quickly put an end to this whole global warming debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RU5781 Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 Okay, maybe "retards" was a little harsh...but Jesus Christ... You rang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 23, 2007 Share Posted March 23, 2007 You rang? Reminds me of a Family Guy clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF0eIwkjlaU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 You rang? You need to get laid, Ed. And I'm only saying this because: you're a friggin' newlywed, and you're posting on the PPP board. Why aren't you on your !@#$ing honeymoon????? Walk away from the computer, and go bang your new bride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts