943,916 Members | Top Members by Rank

Ad:
You are currently viewing page 10 of this multi-page discussion thread; Jump to the first page
Jun 30th, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by joshSCH ...
There's a bit of a difference there I suppose.. V2 rockets can be detected and prepared for.. many died during the blitz.. but many also could seek shelter. Nuclear weapons on the other hand, cannot be prepared for.
i was replying in response to this statement
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1784
Solved Threads: 574
Moderator
jbennet is offline Offline
16,520 posts
since Apr 2005
Jun 30th, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1784
Solved Threads: 574
Moderator
jbennet is offline Offline
16,520 posts
since Apr 2005
Jun 30th, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Fine; new millennium now.
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 2780
Solved Threads: 312
long time no c
Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
4,790 posts
since Apr 2004
Jun 30th, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Midflight? Asymmetric is not symmetric.

If only part of this is true...
http://www.daniweb.com/forums/post39...tml#post390587
In the case of MAD. That is not the topic at current.

[edit]An interesting map.
Note, Josh, how different "experts" with similar intelligence (as in military-type intelligence) have different outlooks, interpretations, and recommendations. This same thing happens within the CIA and should be a concern. There has been a quite prominent and ongoing story in the news that offers a similar slant as well.
Team Colleague
Reputation Points: 2780
Solved Threads: 312
long time no c
Dave Sinkula is offline Offline
4,790 posts
since Apr 2004
Jul 1st, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by EnderX ...
The decision(s) to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were made because the best available estimates indicated that fewer people would die from Fat Man and Little Boy than would die if the allied forces (mostly meaning America in the Pacific Front) were to attempt to invade Japan. Yes, the bombs killed a great number of individuals. However, it was felt that more would have died had they not been used; the bombs were dropped in an effort to bring the war to its end without any more deaths than absolutely necessary.
Hm.. actually, you're completely wrong. The U.S. was island hoping, and it was taking way too long to reach mainland Japan. So, the military decided to get close enough to drop nukes, and therefore try to win the war quicker. We didn't gave a damn if civilians were hurt or not. And the reason we chose those two cities out of all the rest is b/c they had remained unscathed so far in the war.. other cities had been bombed previously, and already had damage. The U.S. wanted to show how powerful our new weapons were.. they could completely annihilate untouched cities.

So, the U.S. nuked Japan to end the war quicker, not to minimize civilian casualties... and those specific cities were chosen to prove out strength. Perhaps you should actually know and understand something before you post

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by EnderX ...
You're thinking of the 80's era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI, aka 'Star Wars') program. To my knowledge, the laser-driven portion has not been tested. (Note to the real experts: If I'm wrong about this, please link me to the evidence so I can look at it.) As I understand it, the missle-shield portion has been tested, but in the same way that a sledgehammer could batter down a normal shield, a strong enough missle strike could overwhelm the missle shield.
Yea, AFAIK the U.S. has no working nuclear missile shield.

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by jbennet ...
Theres the 3 minute warning, this was a big thing in the 50s and 60s but then kinda got phased out. Basically if the sirens sounded, you had 3 minutes to get to a fallout shelter
haha.. well that sure is nice of them to give you a 3 minute warning until you are completely obliterated. It's not like the people could do much..

[edit]afaik=As Far As I Know
Last edited by joshSCH; Jul 1st, 2007 at 2:39 am.
Reputation Points: 1315
Solved Threads: 10
Banned
joshSCH is offline Offline
4,845 posts
since Jul 2005
Jul 1st, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

What does afaik mean?
Reputation Points: 437
Solved Threads: 1
Posting Virtuoso
sk8ndestroy14 is offline Offline
1,851 posts
since Mar 2007
Jul 1st, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Super Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 3233
Solved Threads: 719
Failure as a human
~s.o.s~ is offline Offline
8,871 posts
since Jun 2006
Jul 1st, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

Oh, thanks.
Reputation Points: 437
Solved Threads: 1
Posting Virtuoso
sk8ndestroy14 is offline Offline
1,851 posts
since Mar 2007
Jul 1st, 2007
0

Re: The C.I.A.'s illegal business

yeah, the US did it to make a message to the USSR
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 1784
Solved Threads: 574
Moderator
jbennet is offline Offline
16,520 posts
since Apr 2005
Reputation Points: 115
Solved Threads: 5
Junior Poster
Toba is offline Offline
192 posts
since Jun 2004

This thread is more than three months old

No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Message:
Previous Thread in Geeks' Lounge Forum Timeline: Where's Your Ticklish Spot?
Next Thread in Geeks' Lounge Forum Timeline: Need Support from all of you.





About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Acceptable Use Policy
Forum Index | Build Custom RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter


© 2011 DaniWeb® LLC