• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we on the precifice of World War 3

Are we on the precifice of World War 3

  • Total voters
    80
The Mark said:
Yet you still stated that a neutron bomb "would meet the definition of a dirty bomb"?
Click to expand...

It does, you are thinking of the revisionist definition of a dirty bomb.
You know, how the libs labeled a semi automatic rifle as being an assault rifle by cosmetic features.

Its-Because-Im-Black-Isnt-It-courtesy-rabbi.jpg
 
APACHERAT said:
It does, you are thinking of the revisionist definition of a dirty bomb.
You know, how the libs labeled a semi automatic rifle as being an assault rifle by cosmetic features.

View attachment 67170239
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about?

Revisionist definition of a dirty bomb? What the ****?
 
This is a majority I like being in . I believe that cooler heads will prevail, we do have a peaceful President ..but this goes just so far ..its the tea-bagging conservatives ...
 
APACHERAT said:
There were Democrats sitting in the White House when we found ourselves in WW l and WW ll.
Click to expand...
So what ! You know, or should know that Democrat or Republician in the White House have NOTHING do to with the wars ! The problem was extremists - over there (Japan, Germany).
 
Goshin said:
Let's hope so. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand tons of weed to help that process along. :)
Click to expand...

That suggestion is reminiscent of the great Opium Wars of the 19th century, in which Britain defeated a once-great and powerful China by smuggling in opium, the rampant addiction to which ultimately weakened China and set it up for defeat and conquest by Britain.
 
The Mark said:
What the hell are you talking about?

Revisionist definition of a dirty bomb? What the ****?
Click to expand...

Any bomb that disperses large amounts of unused fissile material is considered a "dirty bomb." Theoretically, a neutron bomb could be a "dirty bomb;" however, that would be a pretty shoddily constructed neutron bomb.

The idea that the modern definition of a "dirty bomb" -- radioactive material dispersed by conventional explosives -- is a "revisionist definition" is grade-A horse manure.
 
Kobie said:
Any bomb that disperses large amounts of unused fissile material is considered a "dirty bomb." Theoretically, a neutron bomb could be a "dirty bomb;" however, that would be a pretty shoddily constructed neutron bomb.

The idea that the modern definition of a "dirty bomb" -- radioactive material dispersed by conventional explosives -- is a "revisionist definition" is grade-A horse manure.
Click to expand...

It's really quite a stretch to characterize a neutron bomb as a dirty bomb. Generally, the term is used to describe a bomb that uses conventional, non-nuclear explosives to spread a payload of dangerously radioactive material—not necessarily “unused fissile material”.

The point to a dirty bomb is to spread a large amount of dangerously-radioactive material, not only killing those in the area of effect, but leaving the area uninhabitable for some time afterward.

That's not what a neutron bomb does. A neutron bomb is meant to produce a short burst of dangerous radiation, in order to kill those who are in its area of effect, but to leave that area otherwise inhabitable. It is specifically the point of a neutron bomb to minimize physical damage to buildings and structures, and to minimize persistent radioactive fallout. The idea is to kill enemies that are occupying an area, so as to be able to go in as soon as possible afterward and occupy that area.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
It's really quite a stretch to characterize a neutron bomb as a dirty bomb. Generally, the term is used to describe a bomb that uses conventional, non-nuclear explosives to spread a payload of dangerously radioactive material—not necessarily “unused fissile material”.

The point to a dirty bomb is to spread a large amount of dangerously-radioactive material, not only killing those in the area of effect, but leaving the area uninhabitable for some time afterward.

That's not what a neutron bomb does. A neutron bomb is meant to produce a short burst of dangerous radiation, in order to kill those who are in its area of effect, but to leave that area otherwise inhabitable. It is specifically the point of a neutron bomb to minimize physical damage to buildings and structures, and to minimize persistent radioactive fallout. The idea is to kill enemies that are occupying an area, so as to be able to go in as soon as possible afterward and occupy that area.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is why for a neutron bomb to be considered a "dirty bomb," it would have to be so poorly constructed as to contradict its purpose.
 
Kobie said:
Yes, which is why for a neutron bomb to be considered a "dirty bomb," it would have to be so poorly constructed as to contradict its purpose.
Click to expand...
In theory I suppose you could design a nuclear bomb with the specific purpose of creating the maximum amount of radioactive particles -but it's only purpose would be long-term contamination of an area, really.
 
Amanda1858 said:
That thought crossed my mind the other day. There are trouble spots all over the world right now. Very scary.
Click to expand...
There have been trouble spots all over the world for the last thousand or so goddamn years.

This is nothing new.
 
APACHERAT said:
Who appeased Putin in 2009 and agreed not to station NATO anti ballistic missiles in Eastern Europe with nothing in exchange from Russia ? From that day on Putin had no respect for a pantywaist who didn't know how to play geopolitic chess. Almost a year ago when Obama kept moving the "red line" in the sand during the Syrian crisis and got into a staring match with Putin and Obama blinked, Obama went in front of the world calming that geopolitics was obsolete in the 21st Century. All of the worlds leaders laughed at Obama. The world doesn't automatically change because of a date on a calendar. All of the world leaders after having a good laugh that the world changed at midnight on January 1st, 2000 went back to geopolitics. Obama believes the world should be as he visions it to be. 99.9% of the people in the world don't vision the world as Obama does.
Click to expand...

More CON scuttlebutt which should have been left in the latrine.

The ignorant 'nuclear shield' would have been an expensive rat hole for more ill CONsidered military spending. Putin is just playing to his base inside Russia- he cares little if any for geopolitical anything. Putin blinked in Syria and do note his cruiser did nothing but sit quietly.

99.9% of the people don't want a military confrontation in Europe, don't laugh at Obama and don't see Putin as the Master of anything past getting fishing rigs ready for baiting...

It is a different world outside the Orange Curtain and those few 'generals' who are passing this scuttle butt onto you... :peace
 
Bob Blaylock said:
That suggestion is reminiscent of the great Opium Wars of the 19th century, in which Britain defeated a once-great and powerful China by smuggling in opium, the rampant addiction to which ultimately weakened China and set it up for defeat and conquest by Britain.
Click to expand...

At the time of the opium wars China was no longer a powerful nation. There were a series of rebellions that showed a basic weakness to the old Empire.

But to use your theory, our nation should have fractured under the combined weight of heroin and cocaine... it didn't.
 
earthworm said:
So what ! You know, or should know that Democrat or Republican in the White House have NOTHING do to with the wars ! The problem was extremists - over there (Japan, Germany).
Click to expand...

Exactly Earthworm, it didn't matter who was in the White House and all I did was point out during the 50's, 60's 70's and even the 80's that there were voters on the streets , a whole bunch of them who didn't vote the party line as they do today and who feared that the Cold War could go Hot War and they looked back in history. A "Hot War" was a nuclear exchange between the USA and the USSR. All they did was look back who was POTUS back during those wars.
 
notquiteright said:
More CON scuttlebutt which should have been left in the latrine.

The ignorant 'nuclear shield' would have been an expensive rat hole for more ill CONsidered military spending. Putin is just playing to his base inside Russia- he cares little if any for geopolitical anything. Putin blinked in Syria and do note his cruiser did nothing but sit quietly.

99.9% of the people don't want a military confrontation in Europe, don't laugh at Obama and don't see Putin as the Master of anything past getting fishing rigs ready for baiting...

It is a different world outside the Orange Curtain and those few 'generals' who are passing this scuttle butt onto you... :peace
Click to expand...

:2rofll:
 
World War 3? Who is gonna fight who? :confused:
 
PoS said:
World War 3? Who is gonna fight who? :confused:
Click to expand...

There's only two, real military Super Powers left that can annihilate the whole world. And TBH lately, it's getting really confusing about who's against who anymore?

I've always known the only real reason people ever fight is ego and resources. All the rest are excuses to cover the single primary one, hate.
 
We are on the 'precifice' of needing a better, DP spell checker.

And 'no', IMO, WW3 is not imminent - not remotely.
 
WW3 would be over so fast, you better hope not.

But just hysteria. I don't care what kind of trash gotcha moments putin wants to play out. It's still long overdue to gut that military budget
 
Navy Pride said:
Since the world is exploding the question begs to be asked.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I have a question: what the heck is someone who can't spell precipice doing on this forum?

why isn't he spending his spare time learning how to read and write?

Fill us in. :lamo

If that isn't a big joke, I don't know what is.

After you educate yourself a little bit, NP, would be a good time to think about educating others,

An ignorant person can get education, but a stupid person will always be stupid.
 
Last edited:
Some people live for the end.

Cartoon - End of the World.jpg
 
Navy Pride said:
Its amazing how you people are not concerned.....First of all we have a president who is totally incompetent especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Then we have the middle east exploding with Israel and the Arabs at each others throats. then we have the Russians and the Ukraine fighting with the Russians taking out passenger planes then we have Iran trying to get a nuke...I haven't even mention North Korea....

Then we have a POTUS who is epitome of the Manchurian Candidate and is clueless.......Other then that everything is just fine. .I don't know what it takes to get you pacifists attention..
Click to expand...



LOL...of course NP. The Israel /Arab conflict didn't exist until Obama was elected. Russia and the Ukraine always had a peaceful existence before Obama. Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon is a direct result of Obama's election...oh and North Korea was a peaceful country until Obama. THANKS OBAMA!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom