- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
What the hell are you talking about?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
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).There were Democrats sitting in the White House when we found ourselves in WW l and WW ll.
Let's hope so. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand tons of weed to help that process along.
Let's hope so. Maybe we should ship them a few thousand tons of weed to help that process along.
What the hell are you talking about?
Revisionist definition of a dirty bomb? What the ****?
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.
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.
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.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.
Since the world is exploding the question begs to be asked.
There have been trouble spots all over the world for the last thousand or so goddamn years.That thought crossed my mind the other day. There are trouble spots all over the world right now. Very scary.
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.
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.
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).
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... eace
World War 3? Who is gonna fight who?
Since the world is exploding the question begs to be asked.
Since the world is exploding the question begs to be asked.
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..
World War 3? Who is gonna fight who?