0

Yeah everyone always takes the mickey out of him lol.

and yeah, we need homes. House prices in the UK are sky high and people cant afford to buy them. However, theres simply not that much room (loads have been built in areas which flood)

Is he talking about houses people can buy? Or are they just some cheap cement caves that people can move into with minimum rent. The later does not make for very nice community to live in. I think that's what they tried in the US, and not even the police was brave enough to come and stop the rampant crime.

0

no not council estates ("cement caves that people can move into with minimum rent" - we tried that in the 60s and 70s) - he wants to build real homes

0

To wipe the USA off the map would take well over 10,000 nuclear bombs of the primitive type Iran would produce.

Or maybe a dozen EMPs? Naw.

But it does make for occasional interesting reading.

The potential vulnerability of the United States of an EMP attack may be a matter of graver moment now that missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating. Terrorists in possession of a nuclear weapon could make an EMP attack against the United States merely by firing a scud missile off a freighter. The launch mode has been tested by Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism.

0

Or maybe a dozen EMPs? Naw.

But it does make for occasional interesting reading.

I don't believe in EMPs. It's just another scare story. Why would the US and Russia have over 10,000 nuclear warheads if just a few would do?

Back to the thread's title. Whomever we elect will have the power to use most of these babies at the press of a button. Maybe it would be wise not to elect some senile old geezer or a selfdelutional ex first lady.

0

Well that documentary, Jericho, got a lot of the states blowed up. How many nukes were there?

Movies in general can dream up a lot of BS. That's entertainment!

0

Or maybe a dozen EMPs? Naw.

But it does make for occasional interesting reading.

Yes it does. Back up your data to CD/DVD just in case. While there would be definite damage, most critical services have a contingency plan and/or computers that are shielded. Multi-national companies have backup data all over the planet. I think some of this comes from the James Bond film where the villan cracked the Bank of England's computer and was going to electronically transfer the assets and then use an EMP bomb to wipe out the bank's records. Well what happens if he succeeds? Does he drive up to the bank with 100 trucks (excuse me lorries) and say "This computer says I own all of your assets so start loading". The bankers would quietly call the nice men in the white coats. There would be damage, but probably not catastrophic chaos IMHO.

0

Yes it does. Back up your data to CD/DVD just in case. While there would be definite damage, most critical services have a contingency plan and/or computers that are shielded. Multi-national companies have backup data all over the planet. I think some of this comes from the James Bond film where the villan cracked the Bank of England's computer and was going to electronically transfer the assets and then use an EMP bomb to wipe out the bank's records. Well what happens if he succeeds? Does he drive up to the bank with 100 trucks (excuse me lorries) and say "This computer says I own all of your assets so start loading". The bankers would quietly call the nice men in the white coats. There would be damage, but probably not catastrophic chaos IMHO.

Maybe paper and pencil for recording data is not that old fashioned.

0

Why would the US and Russia have over 10,000 nuclear warheads if just a few would do?

Because it gives them more options - a less powerful weapon would allow you to cause limited damage in a geographically limited area. A massive weapon would cause more widespread damage, which may not always be what is desired.

0

exactly. For general warfare, nuclear artillery, tactical nukes, and bombs are more effective than big ICBM's or cruise missiles. however, the latter is much for useful for launching a massive strike (the whole binary win/lose argument) or for a MAD policy.

0

It's just another scare story. Why would the US and Russia have over 10,000 nuclear warheads if just a few would do?

In part I think that is due to the inventory and delivery systems of the time.

The Tsar Bomba was the culmination of a series of high-yield thermonuclear weapons designed by the USSR and U.S. during the 1950s (examples include the Mark-17 and B41). Such bombs were designed because:

  • The nuclear bombs of the day were large and heavy, regardless of yield, and could only be delivered by strategic bombers. Hence yield was subject to dramatic economies of scale;
  • It was feared that many bombers would fail to reach their targets because their size and low speed made detection and interception easy. Hence maximizing the firepower carried by any single bomber was vital;
  • Prior to satellite intelligence, each side lacked precise knowledge of the location of the other side's military and industrial facilities;
  • A bomb dropped without benefit of advanced inertial navigation systems could easily miss its intended target by six kilometres or more. Parachute retardation would only worsen the bomb's accuracy.

Thus certain bombs were designed to destroy an entire large city even if dropped five to ten kilometers from its centre. This objective meant that yield and effectiveness were positively correlated, at least up to a point. However, the advent of ICBMs accurate to 500 meters or better made such a design philosophy obsolete. Subsequent nuclear weapon design in the 1960s and 1970s focused primarily on increased accuracy, miniaturization, and safety. The standard practice for many years has been to employ multiple smaller warheads (MIRVs) to "carpet" an area. This is believed to result in greater ground damage.

And in part due to MAD. I don't know whether this same deterrent policy plays as well in an era of asymmetric warfare.

0

He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.
-- George Bernard Shaw

0

George Bush's Hurricane Katrina debacle has provided helpful lessons to the Chinese leadership on how not to do disasters. China's leaders will doubtless have noticed the extent to which, as in Bush's case, fumbling at the top at a time of national crisis can destroy political reputation and legitimacy.

0

George Bush's Hurricane Katrina debacle has provided helpful lessons to the Chinese leadership on how not to do disasters. China's leaders will doubtless have noticed the extent to which, as in Bush's case, fumbling at the top at a time of national crisis can destroy political reputation and legitimacy.

I am glad that George Bush could help at least one country on this earth!

0

What did you step into?

That was from a Mad TV ad for 7-up, the front of the t-shirt said 'Make 7' and the back read 'up yours' - the dude could not figure out why everyone was throwing stuff at him.

An I was responding to someone's .sig that ended with 'up yours' - look back a post or 2

0

That was from a Mad TV ad for 7-up, the front of the t-shirt said 'Make 7' and the back read 'up yours' - the dude could not figure out why everyone was throwing stuff at him.

An I was responding to someone's .sig that ended with 'up yours' - look back a post or 2

Very funny!

0

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found the comments to this blog post quite entertaining.

One of the comments was peculiar strange:
4) Stop the EPA from allowing fuel efficient autos into the US.

0

That sure is an interesting link -- the comments by posters are more interesting than the original blog writer.

Heh. As of my posting now, there are 572 comments. Very few sound pleased. And I thought it was humorous in the double-digit comment days. :icon_razz:

'Dear Congressman Baron: You're such a busy and important person, I'm sure this little matter has just slipped your mind temporarily. But 90% of the federal government is unconstitutional. I'm sure you'll want to abolish all the unauthorized agencies and programs right away. Please don't forget to repeal all the illegal laws and get rid of the taxes while you're at it'..."

:D

0

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found the comments to this blog post quite entertaining.

WOW!
I thought it was only the Dems that eat their young - I had been trying to read and/or listen to 'lefty' stuff and it all reads/sounds like the Rush-left. Just screeding, anti-clinton bombast that sounds just Rush in the '90s. The left and the right are calling the others a 'whore'
Sigh!

It is like the world is getting taken over by people lik rush, malkin, Rhodes, who do not know how to do anything but.....

Sigh! Now I'm starting to rant.

Never mind - thanks for the link Dave

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.