okay i have heard alot of people say WHY NOT send a nuclear or chemical bomb to the middle east and blow them up? Well if you do that it has nuclear fallout and we kill billions of people so why do people still say lets do it?
okay i have heard alot of people say WHY NOT send a nuclear or chemical bomb to the middle east and blow them up? Well if you do that it has nuclear fallout and we kill billions of people so why do people still say lets do it?
You've heard people say why not send a chemical bomb to the ME?
People say it because they are ignorant or let their hatred override their common sense.
Worse still - educated people are calling for the nuclear bomb to be refined to the state where it has no fallout.
You might as well take over the oil and dump all mortals down the black sea or something. Better that way, right?
I believe I said something about nukeing Iran in one thread but it was a flippant, facetious remark. The nukes should never be used unless by using them you can prevent Iran having them because the world is as good as over if they get their hands on nuclear weapons.
WHY NOT send a bomb too the Middle East? Because we are America, we are ignorant, and we could care less about the elimination of human life as long as we're still alive to tell the tale.
Seriously, Americans are some of the most brutal, self-centered people you'll meet.
American mentality: Let's see, Japan attacks us. We can invade, or we could just nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and call it a day, saving an estimated 100,000 American lives (I believe that was the projected casualties for invading Japan). Lets decide... 100,000 Americans troops, taught to accept death, or 170,000 Japanese civilians, who are unnaware of the coming doom.
You all know what we picked.
Is there something wrong with engineering a product to do what it is intended to do without unnecessary additional effects?
Is there something wrong with fixing the design of the automobile from the polluting monsters of the 1950's?
Was there anything wrong with improving nuclear reactor design from the Cherynobyl types to the excellent and safe classes of reators we have now?
Was there anything wrong with re-designing smoke detectors so they no longer need that radioactive bit to nucleate the smoke and amplify the detector sensitivity?
Was there anything wrong with designing light bulbs that use 80% less electricity?
So there's something wrong with designing an explosive that delivers energy where it's intended to go, and not scatter environmental hazards downwind to pester the neighbors?
Bookmarks