West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Trauma-san on March 09, 2003, 10:57:58 PM
-
Here's somethin for the kiddies to sleep tight about.
The U.S. has 12,000 nuclear Warheads, no joke.
Russia, has 22,500. TWENTY TWO THOUSAND, AND FIVE HUNDRED. Normally, I wouldn't care, because it only takes 1 or 2, ya know? But anyways, we all know what's gone down in russia, and who knows how many of these snuck into the wrong hands, got forgot about, were sold by local leaders, etc. That's scary.
-
Word... Those statistics are out of control.
-
fuck man thats craaaazy
-
i found the nukes in USA more dangerous.. specially in the hand of bush..
remember, it was usa who nuked hiroshima and nagasaki... not russia
-
America could blow something up 4000 times the size of earth! No joke.
-
So, you find the nukes Bush has control over, at the top of the world, more threatening then the thousands laying around that anymad man with a little bit of money could buy, and CLIMB to the top of the world with? That's really intelligent. Anti-Americanism at it's best.
-
So, you find the nukes Bush has control over, at the top of the world, more threatening then the thousands laying around that anymad man with a little bit of money could buy, and CLIMB to the top of the world with? That's really intelligent. Anti-Americanism at it's best.
check the facts.. america is STILL the only country that have used nukes towardz innocent people
-
I understand were ibo is coming from, though we need to try and disarm alll countries. you woint achieve shit with nuclear weapons unless u wanna fuck up the world. I'd be more afraid of bush, especially if i lived outside the west, but i guess for americans its obvious an outsider would be more of a threat
-
Yeah, I definitely trust Ivan Stepanovich, the poor baker's son who has just got enough money together to buy a nuke, and hates the free world, more than George W. Bush, a brave and intelligent man who, at heart, believes in the freedom of speech.
Yeah, fuck Bush.
-
Yeah, I definitely trust Ivan Stepanovich, the poor baker's son who has just got enough money together to buy a nuke, and hates the free world, more than George W. Bush, a brave and intelligent man who, at heart, believes in the freedom of speech.
Yeah, fuck Bush.
did you recently see sum of all fears or what... lol
-
Yeah, I definitely trust Ivan Stepanovich, the poor baker's son who has just got enough money together to buy a nuke, and hates the free world, more than George W. Bush, a brave and intelligent man who, at heart, believes in the freedom of speech.
Yeah, fuck Bush.
did you recently see sum of all fears or what... lol
LoL
-
When did you folks get so clouded that you don't see clearly anymore? Russia fell apart. There are nukes all over places that ARENT EVEN RUSSIA ANYMORE. The Russian government basically ceased to exist at one time; do you honestly think all the nukes are accounted for? In the cold war, you had things like Nukes being set to go off at certain times, in case the country was ever eradicated; the only way to disarm them would be to provide security codes, telling the system that the country was still o.k., don't shoot. That's just something as an idiot that popped into my head; imagine what Russia and the U.S. had in the works with the combined intelligence of each countries greatest minds, lol. There could be bombs all over russia set to detonate in 2010, or there could be bombs in a remote station where the 10 employees were all massacred, and the nukes stolen 10 years ago. We don't know.
For you guys to be so paranoid of America that you actually consider them a bigger threat than loose bombs laying around that anybody with bad intentions could grab, you've got to be out of your mind. It would take all of congress, the house of representatives, and the president being insane to nuke a country unfairly. It would take 1 nut with a few followers stealing one out of russia to nuke the dome of the rock, or parliament, or the u.s. capitol building.
I'm an openminded guy, but you guys are so blindly negative towards the u.s. that it's infuriating. Of course the U.S. shouldn't have 12,000 nukes. But when you have 25,000 in a country that's dissolved? I feel like I'm talking to kindergardeners.
-
I'm no nuclear bomb-ologist, but don't those things have to be very carefully stored and maintained? its not like people can just take one and keep it in their yard for when they feel like blowing up a country, right?
Anyway, I've decided I'm not going to worry myself with things that are out of my control. If someone wants to set one of those things off, it aint shit i can do about it
-
Word to both Ronnie and Kaidy.
-
Word to both Ronnie and Kaidy.
word...btw how much does one nuclear war head cost? lol
-{bLaDe}
-
did you recently see sum of all fears or what... lol
You're the one with the weird conspiracy theory about how Bush is trying to kill everyone on purpose.
-
did you recently see sum of all fears or what... lol
You're the one with the weird conspiracy theory about how Bush is trying to kill everyone on purpose.
i know that bush dont hesitate to kill somebody if he he have a possibility to reach his goal... he's just like his damn father.....
i know that what happened in "sum of all fears" cant happen in reality... russia know where their nukes are... btw, in sum of all fears, it was americas fault... it was an american nuke,.,, lol..
you cant keep a nuke in the basement or something.. lol... hiding a nuke is not the easiest thing to do...
-
thats just crazy, hope those bombs are in safe hands. The cold war was just a crazy period.
-
i know that bush dont hesitate to kill somebody if he he have a possibility to reach his goal... he's just like his damn father.....
i know that what happened in "sum of all fears" cant happen in reality... russia know where their nukes are... btw, in sum of all fears, it was americas fault... it was an american nuke,.,, lol..
you cant keep a nuke in the basement or something.. lol... hiding a nuke is not the easiest thing to do...
Did anyone say anything about hiding a nuke in a basement? There are crime lords, terrorist commanders, etc, all over the former USSR. Some control their own mini-countries. The scientists who stayed in Russia often work for these crimelords or terrorists. It's pretty easy, actually.
And all good leaders through history have been willing to sacrifice the needs of the few for the needs of the many.
-
i know that what happened in "sum of all fears" cant happen in reality... russia know where their nukes are... btw, in sum of all fears, it was americas fault... it was an american nuke,.,, lol..
you cant keep a nuke in the basement or something.. lol... hiding a nuke is not the easiest thing to do...
So You're a Nuclear weapons Specialist as well?
"WASHINGTON (AP) - Russia's military has lost track of 100 suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, the nation's former national security chief has told American lawmakers, who expressed alarm to the Clinton administration.
But U.S. and Russian officials discount the claims by retired Gen. Alexander Lebed, the ousted one-time foe of President Boris Yeltsin.
"We don't have any evidence to support what (Lebed) said and responsible Russian officials have specifically denied it," a White House official said Thursday.
"We have no credible information any nuclear weapon, suitcase or not, has even been available on the black market."
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed, however, that the Russian military has such portable nuclear bombs, which security experts describe as the "perfect terrorist weapon" in the wrong hands.
Lebed described the devices as Special Atomic Demolition Munitions that are designed for sabotage behind enemy lines - blowing up bridges or command centers, for example. The 1-kiloton nuclear bombs, which weigh 60-100 pounds and can fit into a suitcase or backpack, can kill 50,000-100,000 people and devastate a portion of a city, according to Lebed.
In May, Lebed told a congressional delegation led by Rep. Curt Weldon, R-Pa., that as Yeltsin's top defense expert last year he discovered the Russian military couldn't account for 48 of 132 of suitcase bombs.
In going public, Lebed upped the total of missing suitcase bombs to 100 out of 250 in an interview with CBS's "60 Minutes."
"I don't know their location," Lebed told CBS in a program scheduled to air Sunday. "I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen. I don't know."
Lebed added that when he told Yeltsin, "I did not see any reaction" and the Russian military didn't institute an inventory check.
Former Defense Minister Igor Rodionov told CBS he "never had any information, a single report" that the suitcase bombs were stolen.
Deputy Defense Minister Andrei Kokoshin, who met with the congressional delegation after Lebed, also assured lawmakers no nuclear weapons were missing.
Last week, Yeltsin named Kokoshin head of the powerful Defense Council as he shook up his cabinet to institute military reforms.
Last October, Yeltsin fired Lebed amid charges the former paratrooper was trying to form a private army. Yeltsin had appointed Lebed his security chief after the general withdrew from challenging the president for re-election.
Rep. Weldon, who concedes Lebed may have an ax to grind, said he believes that at the very least the Russian government's control has grown lax over its nuclear stockpile since the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
"The potential for very sophisticated nuclear technology and weapons to get into the hands of Third World nations and other groups is very real, and it's something I don't think the administration follows up on," Weldon said in an interview. "The Russian government doesn't have control."
In April, Defense Secretary William Cohen said the United States relies on Russian assurances - and not independent checks - that Moscow has full control over its nuclear weapons.
"We don't know the exact nature of the command and control that's in place," Cohen told reporters. "We have been assured by the highest officials that they have very strict controls over their systems."
In August, Weldon, who is a Russian expert and sits on the House National Security Committee, wrote letters to CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, expressing his concerns about Lebed's allegations about the security of Russia's nuclear weapons.
"I was particularly alarmed by his disclosure that he is unable to account for many nuclear weapons," Weldon wrote, detailing the charges.
Weldon also met with Energy Secretary Federico Pena in July before the Cabinet secretary went to Moscow and the congressman urged Pena to bring the matter up again with Russia military officials.
The DOE didn't respond immediately to requests for comment on what Pena discussed in Moscow."
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/090597/LA0759.htm
This report was from 1997...
Here is another from 2002:
"MOSCOW — The head of Russia's nuclear regulatory agency says small amounts of weapons- and reactor-grade nuclear materials have disappeared from the country's atomic facilities.
Instances of the loss of nuclear materials have been recorded, but what the quantity is is another question," Yuri Vishnyevsky, head of Gosatomnadzor, said Thursday. "Of those situations that we can talk about in actuality, they involve either grams of weapons-grade or kilograms of the usual uranium used in atomic power plants."
"Most often, these instances are connected with factories preparing fuel: Elektrostal in the Moscow region and Novosibirsk" in Siberia, Vishnyevsky said.
He did not give further details on when the losses were discovered or how the material might have gone missing.
The International Atomic Energy Agency lists two known thefts of uranium from Elektrostal, in 1994 and 1995. In both cases, the uranium was seized by Russian police.
The agency also lists the 1994 seizure in Germany of 400 grams of plutonium brought in from Moscow.
A few grams of Uranium-235, the most common weapons-grade nuclear material, would not be sufficient to make a bomb. But reactor-grade uranium can be enriched to weapons-grade through a complicated process believed to be possessed by some countries trying to develop nuclear weapons, such as Iraq.
Russia's nuclear security has been a high concern in the decade since the Soviet Union's collapse brought financial troubles that reduced funding for state facilities and induced poverty that could motivate nuclear workers to sell atomic materials.
Worries have risen in the wake of increasing terrorism, including last month's attack on a Moscow theater by Chechen gunmen who held hundreds of hostages to press their demand that Russia withdraw troops from Chechnya.
"After Sept. 11 of last year, the situation with regard to security at all Russian nuclear facilities changed for the better, but it still has not reached perfection," Vishnyevsky said.
He estimated that bringing security to its ideal level at Russian nuclear operations would require about 6 billion rubles, or $200 million.
Vishnyevsky made his statements while criticizing a proposed law on technological regulation now being considered by the Duma, the lower house of parliament.
He presented a letter to the Duma from a number of prominent scientists criticizing the proposed law for calling for "the minimal necessary demands for security at the same time that in the whole world and in our country the demands for security in using atomic energy should be the maximum."
It also was reported Friday that a Russian scientific expedition located a Soviet nuclear submarine and 237 containers of radioactive waste in the northern Kara Sea.
The K-27 submarine was dumped in the Kara Sea in 1981, 13 years after one of its reactors released radiation and it was taken out of service, according to the Norway-based environmental group Bellona.
Expedition members also examined what is believed to be the burial site of the reactor section of another nuclear submarine — the K-254, Russian Deputy Emergency Situations Minister Mikhail Faleyev told the Interfax-Military news agency.
Preliminary tests of water, sediment and sea life found that radiation levels are "stable" at both sites, Faleyev said.
Environmental groups say the Soviet Union routinely dumped radioactive waste and nuclear reactors from decommissioned submarines into Arctic waters off the Novaya Zemlya archipelago, a former nuclear testing site."
-
man some of you are just fucking...OUT THERE!
how do you find America more lethal to you (Canada ,which we'll never bomb cuz they're too close to us and we need someone to make fun of, UK.....our closest allie and a critical link to americas past, same way of thought. Ireland...too close to the UK, Japan...where else would we get our cheap shit, the middle east .....we're after their oil remember??!!, Sweden....can't think of a good reason we need them but we'd never bomb them, Italy..too much of a link to americas past, only other culture besides our own we obess over)
the world is safe from and American Nuke for the most part.....either we have too much of an interest there to kill it , or we have an Ally around there. So unless we go to war with the south pole or mars we ain't nuking jack shit .
also nuclear weapons have evolved from giant bombs to more powerful devices that can fit in your breifcase......
the way you people think is crazy, if i asked you who would you trust more with a gun : an average american cop or a canadian convict on crack a few of you would say the convict cuz the cop was american , and base it on some off the wall concept that all americans are fat dumb idiots with an ego determinded to kill all foriegners......and becuase your favorite rap group said fuck the police
-
man some of you are just fucking...OUT THERE!
how do you find America more lethal to you (Canada ,which we'll never bomb cuz they're too close to us and we need someone to make fun of, UK.....our closest allie and a critical link to americas past, same way of thought. Ireland...too close to the UK, Japan...where else would we get our cheap shit, the middle east .....we're after their oil remember??!!, Sweden....can't think of a good reason we need them but we'd never bomb them, Italy..too much of a link to americas past, only other culture besides our own we obess over)
the world is safe from and American Nuke for the most part.....either we have too much of an interest there to kill it , or we have an Ally around there. So unless we go to war with the south pole or mars we ain't nuking jack shit .
also nuclear weapons have evolved from giant bombs to more powerful devices that can fit in your breifcase......
the way you people think is crazy, if i asked you who would you trust more with a gun : an average american cop or a canadian convict on crack a few of you would say the convict cuz the cop was american , and base it on some off the wall concept that all americans are fat dumb idiots with an ego determinded to kill all foriegners......and becuase your favorite rap group said fuck the police
obvoiusly hiroshima and nagasaki werent safe... were they?...
its simple... i do not trust an american president with a nuke...
-
Im not afraid of bush bombing ireland, we have too good a relationship. As i said though, I'd fear him if i lived outside of the west. I think people fear less what bush could do to their country, but how he could provoke more terrorists to attack the west. All this war thinking is all short term. remember america put saddam in...whats to say in ten years the new guy wont be trying to bomb the fuck out of us. We need to try and get to the root of the problem, and that is understanding why most terrorists do what they do. Most feel opressed by the west like they're second, even third class citizens of the world. THAT needs to be addressed if we are to stomp out terrorism. I believe there is only a tiny minority of terrorists who hate the west because of religion, I think they are incited by sanctions, unfair trade and wars like this one, which will be twisted around as much as possible to attract new recruits.
Dig up the roots, dont just prune the branches
-
man some of you are just fucking...OUT THERE!
how do you find America more lethal to you (Canada ,which we'll never bomb cuz they're too close to us and we need someone to make fun of, UK.....our closest allie and a critical link to americas past, same way of thought. Ireland...too close to the UK, Japan...where else would we get our cheap shit, the middle east .....we're after their oil remember??!!, Sweden....can't think of a good reason we need them but we'd never bomb them, Italy..too much of a link to americas past, only other culture besides our own we obess over)
the world is safe from and American Nuke for the most part.....either we have too much of an interest there to kill it , or we have an Ally around there. So unless we go to war with the south pole or mars we ain't nuking jack shit .
also nuclear weapons have evolved from giant bombs to more powerful devices that can fit in your breifcase......
the way you people think is crazy, if i asked you who would you trust more with a gun : an average american cop or a canadian convict on crack a few of you would say the convict cuz the cop was american , and base it on some off the wall concept that all americans are fat dumb idiots with an ego determinded to kill all foriegners......and becuase your favorite rap group said fuck the police
obvoiusly hiroshima and nagasaki werent safe... were they?...
its simple... i do not trust an american president with a nuke...
The president is not the only one to authorize a Nuclear attack, Congress & Represenitives also...just say you do not trust the American Governent which has the liberty of freedom which other countries criticize/lack. Dont like it...move to Iraq
-
man some of you are just fucking...OUT THERE!
how do you find America more lethal to you (Canada ,which we'll never bomb cuz they're too close to us and we need someone to make fun of, UK.....our closest allie and a critical link to americas past, same way of thought. Ireland...too close to the UK, Japan...where else would we get our cheap shit, the middle east .....we're after their oil remember??!!, Sweden....can't think of a good reason we need them but we'd never bomb them, Italy..too much of a link to americas past, only other culture besides our own we obess over)
the world is safe from and American Nuke for the most part.....either we have too much of an interest there to kill it , or we have an Ally around there. So unless we go to war with the south pole or mars we ain't nuking jack shit .
also nuclear weapons have evolved from giant bombs to more powerful devices that can fit in your breifcase......
the way you people think is crazy, if i asked you who would you trust more with a gun : an average american cop or a canadian convict on crack a few of you would say the convict cuz the cop was american , and base it on some off the wall concept that all americans are fat dumb idiots with an ego determinded to kill all foriegners......and becuase your favorite rap group said fuck the police
obvoiusly hiroshima and nagasaki werent safe... were they?...
its simple... i do not trust an american president with a nuke...
The president is not the only one to authorize a Nuclear attack, Congress & Represenitives also...just say you do not trust the American Governent which has the liberty of freedom which other countries criticize/lack. Dont like it...move to Iraq
lol....
the president always have the last word...
-
I-Bo, you just proved you know nothing about the Constitution.
-
I-Bo, you just proved you know nothing about the Constitution.
LoL...exactly...
PS: As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...that was a long goddamn time ago. Japan attacked the U.S. without warning, killing thousands and taking out a large part of our naval fleet. So we bombed them twice, knowing that one time was not enough for their surrender. Yes, innocent people did parish and it was a horrible thing. BUT, if the U.S. really wanted to make Japan suffer, we would've bombed Tokyo. We took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were places of military intelligence, NOT because they were just cities with lots of people in it.
-
dont the president have the last word?? ... im pretty sure the president have the last word, specially when it comes to war..
btw xearo...
japan bombed military targets....
america NUKED military target.... the biggest fool would understand that even if you NUKE military target, the ENTIRE are wil be afected... so the president and his "staff" KNEW that millions... and millions... (man i feel like the rock.. lol) of people would die becaue of that nuke they dropped...
-
PS: As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...that was a long goddamn time ago. Japan attacked the U.S. without warning, killing thousands and taking out a large part of our naval fleet.
fdr knew that japan would attack... take a course on history
So we bombed them twice, knowing that one time was not enough for their surrender.
you didn't bomb anyone.
Yes, innocent people did parish and it was a horrible thing. BUT, if the U.S. really wanted to make Japan suffer, we would've bombed Tokyo
man....i'm impressed by your ruthlessness... pure fascism
We took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were places of military intelligence, NOT because they were just cities with lots of people in it.
again, you didn't do anything..... besides, PLEASE take a course on history.... please...... really.... hiroshima and nagasaki were places of military intelligence? if stupidity hurt you'd be dead. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were WAR CRIMES. These cities were bombed to break the Japanese. Please take a course on history ...
-
dont the president have the last word?? ... im pretty sure the president have the last word, specially when it comes to war..
btw xearo...
japan bombed military targets....
america NUKED military target.... the biggest fool would understand that even if you NUKE military target, the ENTIRE are wil be afected... so the president and his "staff" KNEW that millions... and millions... (man i feel like the rock.. lol) of people would die becaue of that nuke they dropped...
The President doesn't have the last word on war, or anything similar.
Oh, and Agua is on point a lot; but I think to call FDR a war criminal is stretching a point. Desperation makes men do strange things, and in the long term, it DID save lives. However, were those American lives worth sacrificing the world's innocence for?
-
oops i meant truman
-
oops i meant truman
Yup, Truman was a bastard. Agreed. FDR only let him be Vice because Truman would have cried otherwise.
-
PS: As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...that was a long goddamn time ago. Japan attacked the U.S. without warning, killing thousands and taking out a large part of our naval fleet.
fdr knew that japan would attack... take a course on history
you should...it was Truman
So we bombed them twice, knowing that one time was not enough for their surrender.
you didn't bomb anyone.
Noone likes a smartass
Yes, innocent people did parish and it was a horrible thing. BUT, if the U.S. really wanted to make Japan suffer, we would've bombed Tokyo
man....i'm impressed by your ruthlessness... pure fascism
I'm impressed by your ignorance. I just said innocent people dying was a horrible thing...dumbass
We took out Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were places of military intelligence, NOT because they were just cities with lots of people in it.
again, you didn't do anything..... besides, PLEASE take a course on history.... please...... really.... hiroshima and nagasaki were places of military intelligence? if stupidity hurt you'd be dead. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were WAR CRIMES. These cities were bombed to break the Japanese. Please take a course on history ...
WAR CRIMES? You wanna talk about war crimes? OK, let's talk about Germany's(your country) former Nazi leader who killed hundreds of thousands of Jews because he hated them. BTW, I am in Global History 10 right now, learning about WWI...I'm so sorry I haven't leared all that much about WWII compared to your vast knowledge on everything.
-
Oh, and Agua is on point a lot; but I think to call FDR a war criminal is stretching a point. Desperation makes men do strange things, and in the long term, it DID save lives. However, were those American lives worth sacrificing the world's innocence for?
truman, not fdr - my fault. truman was really proud of the massacre. hence i think war criminal is an appropriate name for this guy. i agree that pearl harbor was a cowardish act (a war crime) - yet it was no reason to annihilate hiroshima and nagaski. since these places were inhabited by approximately 400000-600000 (correct me i'm wrong) people, the whole thing is such a contemptible atrocity - there is no excuse.
-
dont the president have the last word?? ... im pretty sure the president have the last word, specially when it comes to war..
btw xearo...
japan bombed military targets....
america NUKED military target.... the biggest fool would understand that even if you NUKE military target, the ENTIRE are wil be afected... so the president and his "staff" KNEW that millions... and millions... (man i feel like the rock.. lol) of people would die becaue of that nuke they dropped...
Congress has the ultimate decision on anything. Yes, the President can Veto, but Congress can overthrow the Veto.
PS: It wasn't millions and millions(kinda do feel like the rock,lol) who died. From both bombings, around 250,000 died...not millions...
-
WAR CRIMES? You wanna talk about war crimes? OK, let's talk about Germany's(your country) former Nazi leader who killed hundreds of thousands of Jews because he hated them.
true. ironically, i would have been among the victims of the holocaust - i'm a mulatto. so please spare me your stupid rant and stick to the topic you mental midget
BTW, I am in Global History 10 right now, learning about WWI...I'm so sorry I haven't leared all that much about WWII compared to your vast knowledge on everything.
then shut up.
-
Oh, and Agua is on point a lot; but I think to call FDR a war criminal is stretching a point. Desperation makes men do strange things, and in the long term, it DID save lives. However, were those American lives worth sacrificing the world's innocence for?
truman, not fdr - my fault. truman was really proud of the massacre. hence i think war criminal is an appropriate name for this guy. i agree that pearl harbor was a cowardish act (a war crime) - yet it was no reason to annihilate hiroshima and nagaski. since these places were inhabited by approximately 400000-600000 (correct me i'm wrong) people, the whole thing is such a contemptible atrocity - there is no excuse.
Talk about histroy classes...
You think that Truman was PROUD of the massacre? You are even more ignorant than I thought. The only thing in that whole ordeal that Truman was proud of was finally ending the war between the U.S. and Japan, saving thousands and thousands of American lives by not invading.
-
PS: It wasn't millions and millions(kinda do feel like the rock,lol) who died. From both bombings, around 250,000 died...not millions...
what a difference... ::)
-
man....i'm impressed by pure fascism
HEIL AGUA!!!!
-
Truman was proud America had created such a wonderful device. The man was a certifiable maniac. The only president I trust less is Lincoln. At least JFK and Clinton, though liars, were good presidents.
-
PS: It wasn't millions and millions(kinda do feel like the rock,lol) who died. From both bombings, around 250,000 died...not millions...
what a difference... ::)
IGNORANCE
It is a big difference. A million people...let's see if I remember from math class...OH RIGHT
1,000,000 people is 4 TIMES the amount of 250,000...that is a big difference...
-
PS: It wasn't millions and millions(kinda do feel like the rock,lol) who died. From both bombings, around 250,000 died...not millions...
what a difference... ::)
IGNORANCE
It is a big difference. A million people...let's see if I remember from math class...OH RIGHT
1,000,000 people is 4 TIMES the amount of 250,000...that is a big difference...
you didn't even realize what i was aiming at.... poor fool
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
-
PS: It wasn't millions and millions(kinda do feel like the rock,lol) who died. From both bombings, around 250,000 died...not millions...
what a difference... ::)
IGNORANCE
It is a big difference. A million people...let's see if I remember from math class...OH RIGHT
1,000,000 people is 4 TIMES the amount of 250,000...that is a big difference...
you didn't even realize what i was aiming at.... poor fool
Yes, I did see what you were aiming at.
You're saying that 250,000 deaths compared to millions of deaths isn't that big because so many people died. It is a difference...a HUGE difference...because its 4 times or more as many families that would've been broken up and destroyed. If you can't see that...then I give up...
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
usa have been all over al quaida for years
-
WAR CRIMES? You wanna talk about war crimes? OK, let's talk about Germany's(your country) former Nazi leader who killed hundreds of thousands of Jews because he hated them. BTW, I am in Global History 10 right now, learning about WWI...I'm so sorry I haven't leared all that much about WWII compared to your vast knowledge on everything.
it were 6 million, just a little difference... :-\
IGNORANCE
It is a big difference. A million people...let's see if I remember from math class...OH RIGHT
1,000,000 people is 4 TIMES the amount of 250,000...that is a big difference...
weren't you the one that made a mistake of several MILLION deaths? :-\
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
usa have been all over al quaida for years
and that's a bad thing according to the sweed
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
usa have been all over al quaida for years
and that's a bad thing according to the sweed
bigfagdoggydogg... why dont you just release my balls
-
bigfagdoggydogg... why dont you just release my balls
We need to promote them first...
-
bigfagdoggydogg... why dont you just release my balls
We need to promote them first...
uhhh......
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
usa have been all over al quaida for years
and that's a bad thing according to the sweed
bigfagdoggydogg... why dont you just release my balls
big fag doggy dogg...
that was the gayest comeback
for someone who is suppose to be soooo smart you have 0 wit.
like i said before , i'd rather have a gay name than look like a gay man like you
-
Heres another idea for everyone to think about...
Let's say that the U.S. didn't drop the two atomic bombs. If they didn't, the war would've dragged on for at least another year.(Japan wasn't going to surrender after the first bomb...would they surrender if the US invaded? Probably not.)
If the U.S. invaded Japan, thousands and thousands of lives would be lost in the first week. Japan would be bombing the US, the US would be bombing Japan...and this thing would've gone on for some time...all the while more and more people are dying.
So, if 250,000 people died in the two bombings, compare it to the death figures that would've resulted if we didn't use the A-Bomb and the war would've dragged on for a much longer time. The difference between them may not be all that big.....
so you're saying that its actually good that usa killed thousands (the million thing was a joke,,..) japs with nukes... ?? ?? to avoid further battles ?? ?? ??....
in that case lets check this situation....
al quaida feels oppresed by usa... so they bombed twin towers in order to terrify usa and make them think twice before tryig to kill them.... so i guess they were justified to do that accordig to xearo....
hm... interesting
What is comming of WCC??? ::)
Al Queda feels opressed by USA...OK....Islamic governement leaders smoke a lotta crack...but they bombed the towers cuz WHAT?? USA did not threaten Al Queda...we didnt have shit on em until they vomved us...any idiot will know that if they instigate an attack on a power 1000 times greater than them they will definitely get their asses crushed...and thats wat happened. Damn dude its 5AM here...I KNOW it can't be THAT late there...da cricket game iz on rite now haha at Centuriton...maybe ur dumbass just woke up, so next time dont try to be witty until u get ur brain awake dipshit, LOL.
usa have been all over al quaida for years
and that's a bad thing according to the sweed
bigfagdoggydogg... why dont you just release my balls
big fag doggy dogg...
that was the gayest comeback
for someone who is suppose to be soooo smart you have 0 wit.
like i said before , i'd rather have a gay name than look like a gay man like you
lol... i dont even know how ru paul looks like, but i guess you know all about those things....
if you want beef, let us handle it in the keystyle board... if not, stfu...
as matter fact....
I CHALLENGE YOU on a battle.... i can give you handicap if you wish...
are you man enough to accept, or are you to much of a faggot....
-
lol thing is ......i dont rap, your challenge is pointless. you're basicallly challenging me to something you know you're better at. how bitch is that? how bout i say "if your man enough i challenge you to a guitar duel"
and like i said i'll stop fucking with you the day you stop being a dick
-
lol thing is ......i dont rap, your challenge is pointless. you're basicallly challenging me to something you know you're better at. how bitch is that? how bout i say "if your man enough i challenge you to a guitar duel"
and like i said i'll stop fucking with you the day you stop being a dick
u used to keystyle if i remember correct....
and how difficult can it be to defeat me...? .. i mean.. according to you, i cant even write decent ::)
-
lol thing is ......i dont rap, your challenge is pointless. you're basicallly challenging me to something you know you're better at. how bitch is that? how bout i say "if your man enough i challenge you to a guitar duel"
and like i said i'll stop fucking with you the day you stop being a dick
u used to keystyle if i remember correct....
and how difficult can it be to defeat me...? .. i mean.. according to you, i cant even write decent ::)
i did that like a year and a half ago for fun, and becuase my homie Tanjint wanted to see how i'd rap.....i don't like to rap it's no my thing. just like using real istruments are not yours.
-
i don't like to rap it's no my thing. just like using real istruments are not yours.
LMFAO!!
-
i don't like to rap it's no my thing. just like using real istruments are not yours.
LMFAO!!
and the funny part is??
i dont even think his intention was to be funny
-
Well, I laughed...Am I a bad person for laughing?
-
Well, I laughed...Am I a bad person for laughing?
Yeah...Close~Minded is having a hard time these days...his boyfriend of 2 years dumped him ya know, at least be somewhat respectful to him-his ego is severly damaged.
:D
-
Trauma, where did u get this info from? Can you send me the article/source where u gots the stats from? Cause I told my History teacher and he said we had more nuclear weapons.
Can u help me out?
-
So, you find the nukes Bush has control over, at the top of the world, more threatening then the thousands laying around that anymad man with a little bit of money could buy, and CLIMB to the top of the world with? That's really intelligent. Anti-Americanism at it's best.
for real (shakin my head) :(