In response to Justin Knight (#27)
Justin Knight wrote:
Depends on the 'nuke' though, and some people confuse atomic weapons with nuclear weapons, which are much more powerful than atomic ones.

Actually, atomic weapons are nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are those which use the forces of nuclear fission and/or nuclear fusion. The nicknames are what often confuse people; the term atomic weapon is usually used to mean nuclear fission whereas the term hydrogen weapon is usually used to mean nuclear fusion. A-bombs and H-bombs.

However, you are correct in saying that A-bombs are usually less destructive. In fact, nuclear fission bombs are used as a trigger for nuclear fusion bombs, since the intense heat created by the former is used to set off the latter. Nuclear fission reactions usually convert about a tenth of a percent of the reactive material into energy, but nuclear fusion weapons convert about a third of a percent of their material into energy.

A bit closer to being back on topic however, nuclear weapons most certainly can rival natural disasters, and easily. While all the doomsday sayers who claim we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world don't know what they are talking about, we do have at least enough to destroy a very large percentage of the total population.

An unannounced nuclear weapon of a few megatons would have done much more damage than this hurricane did, as it would have totally destroyed all buildings near ground zero and it would have killed many thousands upon thousands of people. At least with natural disasters we often have warning. Heck, even with the Mount St. Helans disaster mentioned we had enough warning to evacuate many people, even if not in all the correct areas.

To get completely back on topic now, yes, gas price is terrible. It has been jumping 10 to 30 cents at a time every night now; it is rediculous. I am completely serious when I say it feels like a bad dream. Hopefully most people will be smart enough to begin conserving fuel so that it does not go over $10 per gallon or more. There was a flood of customers at the gas station just before the huge jumps, but fortunately now there are almost no customers at all. As long as the gas station doesn't go out of business, the few customers means they won't run out so soon.

I find it difficult to imagine what the people in the worst areas, or even right at the disaster sites, must be going through.
I live near charlottle..In little old lexington..:]
In response to Teh Governator (#2)
I am from New Orleans.
I came to these boards, away from CNN, websites of New Orleanian newspapers and tv channels that have evacuated and set up ad hoc informational sites to provide the names of missing and found people, from AP pictures of flooding, flaming buildings, and, more importantly, the starving, dehydrated, and endangered citizens of my hometown (some of which may be my friends and coworkers), to have some distraction from the horrible situation those people are going through. My first reaction to teh governator's post was extreme anger, but to be honest, that won't be the first time darwin will be invoked by someone who has no idea of the condidtions those people lived through even before this disaster and no heart for what they are going through now. I have no desire to devote any energy to respond to such an ignorant display of arm-chair callousness.
I will say that these people are citizens of our world, and our nation and that anything that degrades not only their dignity and well-being degrades the dignity and well-being of us all.
If anyone is interested in helping fellow human beings that are suffering a fate that no one deserves, I would ask, personally, that you donate blood/time/money to the red cross at (there is no perfect system to help but the redcross is one of the best in this situation) and if you do, I thank you.
In response to Mecha Destroyer JD (#37)
You copied my post, without adding anyhing of your own. Why? Am I missing something? Are you trying to prove some kind of point?

In response to Vito Stolidus (#26)
Vito Stolidus wrote:
The US did not invent Nukes, the sun did. (Strictly speaking) and we'd never cut through the red tape to nuke civillins anyway. It'll never happen. In a manner of speaking, Bureacucy says we can't nuke anyone.

Um, never happen? We've nuked 2 cities already. Or has everyone forgoten what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki back in August, 1945?

In response to Vito Stolidus (#43)
Way more than 4 feet..The whole city is basicly under water..
i know man i live in Shelby North Carolina to evry gas station naer my house has gas prices of about $3.50 a gallon and half the pumps are empty
In response to Xooxer (#44)
Vito Stolidus wrote:
The US did not invent Nukes, the sun did. (Strictly speaking) and we'd never cut through the red tape to nuke civillins anyway. It'll never happen. In a manner of speaking, Bureacucy says we can't nuke anyone.

If you believe that, Vito, look up the Nucler Football and Strategic Hair-Trigger Alert. Long in short, every moment we're within 15 minutes of a nuclear exchange. There is very little red tape.
In response to Mecha Destroyer JD (#45)
I heard that too. I thought it was exageration. I guess I was wrong.


**Would it help if I changed my post to your liking?
In response to Xooxer (#44)
The bureacucy wasn't in on the millitary back then now it is. We couldn't nuke anywhere, even if every person that could possibly be affected was an enemy... Someone'd give a stoopid excuse and the media and bureacucy would latch on.

In response to PirateHead (#47)
If there's little red tape, how come a top general got fired during the korean war for advising the president to use nuclear weapons on the North Koreans and the Chinese communists?

I've heard of the nuclear football. I also know that any president that orders the launch of Nukes, even justifiably, will be (possibly unconstitutionally) overruled by the supreme court or the senate. If the missiles actually launched, that president would be called a "Nuclear cowboy" and scourged by the media and government. He would then be impeached. The enviro-communists (environmentalist radicals) would practically accuse him of wanting the world barren and lifeless, wanting a nuclear winter (which could only happen through hundreds of Nuke strikes) and killing innocent civillians (even if no civillians were harmed). The same enviro-communists would then suggest the death penalty in the resulting impeachment hearings.

That's as accurate as I can predict, judging by those groups' reactions to other events (like the hurricane we're supposed to be discussing, ironically) and the increasingly unconstitutional actions of the High Court and, to a lesser extent, the senate.

In response to Vito Stolidus (#50)
There's no supreme court to overrule the decision. If the hair-trigger system is activated, the President of the United States has 15 minutes to decide a course of action. He can choose to launch no missiles, or he can choose to wipe out entire nations. After that, because other countries have similar capabilities, impeaching the president will probably be the last thing on peoples' minds.
In response to Vito Stolidus (#50)
Wow. It almost sounds almost as if you think that launching nuclear missiles is a great thing. And anything stopping the president of the United States from doing so is unconstitutional. It also sounds like you don't like the evul commies that disagree with mass-murder.
In response to PirateHead (#51)
The thing on our minds would be "Oh...whats that in the sky...OH MY GOD."

Nuclear ash, we be.
In response to Jon88 (#52)

I never said that launching nukes is good. I only am making the case that the nuclear capability that kept the soviets from storming us with troops or an air attack during the last century could never be used today, even if it was the only way to solve a situation. The unconstitutionality I was talking about would be a supreme court overrulement that indeed would be against the rules set down in the constitution (Such as many rulings in the past were, but for the sake of this thread I won't go there). Moreover, the enviro-communists I was referring to simply wouldn't care if people died. They need a reason to blame capitalism in all its forms (hence nickname). In the hypothetical situation I was using as an example, no civillian was harmed in any way. (I think I put that in, if I didn't I'm sorry) I don't think launching a nuke is a good thing, but I think that, if a situation where nukes are needed arises, the president should be able to use that capability and not be blasted out of office for it. I can think of at least 1 scenario (Very likely in the next 50 years) when Nukes may need to be used. Don't ask about that unless you really want to know, it's not relevant to this discussion anyway.

In response to PirateHead (#51)
GRRRRR... You guys... The supreme court would find a way to stop those missiles, especially if the target was a communist/socialist country (China, North Korea, Cuba, etc). If they couldn't, It's unlikely that president would remain in office long. (Remember the senate complaining the president wasn't consulting them enough on his supreme courrt nominees not long ago) The senate would complain that they had no say in the matter and someone would yell "Impeachment!" and that president would be out of office before the fallout settles.

In response to Vito Stolidus (#49)
I guess you're not aware of this, but right now, the media, military and bureaucracy are all pretty much the same monkey. As Piratehead pointed out, all it takes is the president to push a button and launch us into nuclear war. Nobody would even know what happened before it was too late to do anything about it. Not even Superman could stop the events from unfolding. And here's how I see it going down:

CIA uncovers/fabricates/initiates imminent threat to U.S. safety.
    "Boy, that chinaman is sure happy, he's probably goin' to attack us!"

President is informed/advised/updated on the situation.
    "Evil chinese hate you!"

President makes decision to launch, and does.
    That makes baby Jebus cry.

Threat is eliminated, but sets off others around the globe.
    "Well, if it's that sort of party I'm sticking my nukes in the mess too!"

President makes an address stating what we (he) just did, and a really short statement on why, followed by a long-winded explaination on how we should feel and react to it.
    "We cannot allow evil people from doing the evil things they do!"

The Media puts a patriotic spin on the whole mess, and reminds everyone to not let impending doom affect their holiday shopping.
    Commies Cower Under Christian Values (news at 11)

Alaska finally seceeds and joins Canada.
    The smart ones.

Hawaii too.
    "Hey, sweet! Hot chicks in grass skirts."

We're doomed, their doomed, the Canadians are doomed, baby Jebus is doomed, along with the Pope and your mother.
    "Lord save us!" (he's doomed too)

~X :P
In response to Xooxer (#56)

You can't seriously believe that...

I'm not going to argue with people who say "The government, millitary, and media are all the same monkey." The truth is, the media has had it in for the millitary since the Vietnam War (Which, incedentally, we lost because the media supported the Communists). The media loves to show us all how big government is the best thing, which is what gives the impression that some parts of government and the media work together.

The media has been crusading against America doing anything more millitarily than passing out MREs to poor folk in Africa for years. If a nuke was launched, the media would scream for the president's head on a post. The senate would then take the baton, and the Supreme Court may declare the use of Nuclear Warheads unconstitutional. (Maybe they'll find that in the "Right to privacy", heh)

Saying that the millitary is working with the media just... makes me mad. It may not be your fault: you may have heard that from a "Credible" source (like Michael Moore, but let's not go there please) and believed it. Just know that the exact opposite is true. (The world's best fighting force would never stoop to the level of CNN.)

In response to Vito Stolidus (#57)
There is one important point that Xooxer makes, though. By the time the nuclear exchange is over, whether the president gets impeached really does not matter. Finding, treating, feeding, and securing the future of survivors (if there are any) will take first bid, and governments will change drastically. In fact, if the President and communication systems survived the nuclear exchanged, the President could certianly declare Marshal Law for such a disaster and the actions of the Senate and the media would mean absolutely nothing.
In response to PirateHead (#58)
I'm not talking about a M.A.D. Situation. Want an example that would be what my scenario is based on? Here goes...

The CIA discovers an Al-queda training camp and base-of-operations on a small south-pacific island. There are over five thousand Al queda members on the island, including top members, decision makers, and reportedly, Osama Bin Laden. The island is well-defended from the air, surrounded by waters not navigable by anything larger than a rubber raft, and what's more, they're working on a nuclear weapon's program and a program to develop biological weapons. The CIA has also found out that most of the facilities can be moved onto planes and into the air with only two hour's warning. The President orders the island nuked...

Get it? The enemy would be one that could not nuke back (Al queda) and invasion by air and sea ruled out... also, it would be a pressing danger. Something like that.

Page: 1 2 3 4