This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
World War 3, the way of downfall?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Levarus
dinosaurs probably had a world war, like a land vs. sea and air type thing going on. that's why u still see birds and alligators but not t-rex's and raptors and all that good stuff. imo. wait, see that connection i just made with world war?
Yeah, I see a connection all right. A connection between your mind and total insanity
Forgot the period at the end of you're second sentence there sparky. I'm sorry but it looks bad and I am highly disgusted by people that forget to end sentences with a period. But past that, yea, I guess I am totally insane.
Post by
MyTie
dinosaurs probably had a world war, like a land vs. sea and air type thing going on. that's why u still see birds and alligators but not t-rex's and raptors and all that good stuff. imo. wait, see that connection i just made with world war?
Yeah, I see a connection all right. A connection between your mind and total insanity
Forgot the period at the end of you're second sentence there sparky. I'm sorry but it looks bad and I am highly disgusted by people that forget to end sentences with a period. But past that, yea, I guess I am totally insane.
Sorry, I'll try to remember the period at the end of my sentences from now on
Post by
Morec0
I demand royalties as the source of inspiration.A lot of good that will do you when:everyone else is very much right in their thinking we will blow each other upDo you have any logic at all to back up your idea? I know you don't have facts, but at least some logic would be nice.
I take a page from Scarecrow here: we're all, at the very core, motivated by fear. We'll be motivated by fear to begin launching the nukes, fear that we will lose the war or whatever the hell prompts the launching of the nukes, and we will lose our way of life to one other system or another. Then the leaders who had launched their missles will be overcome by a new fear/realization: what they have just done will wipe out ever living create on the planet and reduce it to a lifeless husk. It'll be that fear that makes them abort the launch at the very last second.
Fear will bring the world of the edge of the apocolypse, and fear will stop it just short of crossing over that line.
Post by
MyTie
I take a page from Scarecrow here: we're all, at the very core, motivated by fear. We'll be motivated by fear to begin launching the nukes, fear that we will lose the war or whatever the hell prompts the launching of the nukes, and we will lose our way of life to one other system or another. Then the leaders who had launched their missles will be overcome by a new fear/realization: what they have just done will wipe out ever living create on the planet and reduce it to a lifeless husk. It'll be that fear that makes them abort the launch at the very last second.
Fear will bring the world of the edge of the apocolypse, and fear will stop it just short of crossing over that line.
What about people that want to die, and want to kill everyone when they die?
Post by
190432
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Morec0
I take a page from Scarecrow here: we're all, at the very core, motivated by fear. We'll be motivated by fear to begin launching the nukes, fear that we will lose the war or whatever the hell prompts the launching of the nukes, and we will lose our way of life to one other system or another. Then the leaders who had launched their missles will be overcome by a new fear/realization: what they have just done will wipe out ever living create on the planet and reduce it to a lifeless husk. It'll be that fear that makes them abort the launch at the very last second.
Fear will bring the world of the edge of the apocolypse, and fear will stop it just short of crossing over that line.
What about people that want to die, and want to kill everyone when they die?
In my scenario, its not religious fanatics that have the nukes, its established governments - the US, Russia, and any others that have nuclear capabilities - that are doing this. I think even Kim Jong Ill would have thought twice about launching nukes if it actually came down to "If you do this, Kim, we'll retaliate with all of ours". Now, should someone like Osama Bin Laden gotten ahold of one, there may have been a radically different plot development there.
Post by
gamerunknown
The point of having nukes is that they act as a deterrent. If the US declares war on China, it's pretty much already declaring "Mutually Assured Destruction". The government isn't going to stand by while the infantry win a bitter war of attrition on Chinese shores that will end up eradicating the population anyway.
As to whether
crops can be replanted
: you may have recognised
this
from Call of Duty.
Post by
Morec0
The point of having nukes is that they act as a deterrent. If the US declares war on China, it's pretty much already declaring "Mutually Assured Destruction". The government isn't going to stand by while the infantry win a bitter war of attrition on Chinese shores that will end up eradicating the population anyway.
As to whether
crops can be replanted
: you may have recognised
this
from Call of Duty.
I think there may have been a misunderstanding in my use of the quote. It was a response to the response to my idea that we would not willingly destroy our own lands on that kind of a scale (the one the talked about how a retreating army destroyed their own holdings so that the enemly could not use them). The context in which I was using the quote was Yes, they did that but had few reservations about doing so because they could replace those things later
Compared to that we would not willingly nuke our own planet beccause it would mean the end of everything
Damn, we do this there will be NO rebuilding.
Post by
Levarus
dinosaurs probably had a world war, like a land vs. sea and air type thing going on. that's why u still see birds and alligators but not t-rex's and raptors and all that good stuff. imo. wait, see that connection i just made with world war?
Yeah, I see a connection all right. A connection between your mind and total insanity
Forgot the period at the end of you're second sentence there sparky. I'm sorry but it looks bad and I am highly disgusted by people that forget to end sentences with a period. But past that, yea, I guess I am totally insane.
You used the wrong form of "your" there sparky. I'm sorry but it looks bad and I am highly disgusted by people that forget to use the correct form of the word.
Don't worry, using the new term "shruggery" MyTie created, I can shrug off you're trolling techniques. Plus, if the end of the world does come due to a final and massive war, it will probably be caused by bio weapons and not nukes. I mean think about it. If you can nuke a city, leaving behind radiation as well as destroying the buildings, or just send a few bombers with the new BioTech missiles and kill all the people but still have the buildings plus no radiation, wouldn't that be the better way to go? That way you could still inhabit the city, not having to worry about radiation poisoning or rebuilding homes. It's a win win situation.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
shruggery
Bring me...
A SHRUGGERY!
Post by
Morec0
Erm Levarus, would you not need to be immunized before you could come into contact with the pathogen delivered by the new biotech weapons? Sounds more like a lose lose situation to me. Tic Tac Toe all over again.
MoreconRivendare: willingly, or unwillingly, nuking our own planet has the same consequences. Also, the last time I looked, the entire planet was mine to live and thrive in, and everybody else's too. Even Bastards and maniacs. It's the price we pay for civilization.
Not to mention the virus could have the nasty effect of mutating into something else, likely something even more dead that we wont be prepared for. That's the thing about using bio-tech; it evolves, just like everything else in nature. Machine tech is more reliable, but, as you pointed out it quite often leave little behind.
And I don't belive I ever said otherwise, pike. I just said that the "sane" people (read: not the maniacs and bastards and others who would kill themselves just to kill us) would mostly likely realize the full scope of what they were about to do and abort all missle launches. Of course, this scenario would probably take a long, drawn-out, costly, and bitter, hate-fueled war to become viable (the nukes being thought of as the only possible endgame untill they realize that it will be
the
endgame, of everything).
shruggery
Bring me...
A SHRUGGERY!
Then... you must cut dow the mightiest tree in the forest with... a
HEARING
!
God, I don't even know why I'm letting myself post that joke...
Post by
Levarus
Erm Levarus, would you not need to be immunized before you could come into contact with the pathogen delivered by the new biotech weapons? Sounds more like a lose lose situation to me. Tic Tac Toe all over again.
MoreconRivendare: willingly, or unwillingly, nuking our own planet has the same consequences. Also, the last time I looked, the entire planet was mine to live and thrive in, and everybody else's too. Even Bastards and maniacs. It's the price we pay for civilization.
Not to mention the virus could have the nasty effect of mutating into something else, likely something even more dead that we wont be prepared for. That's the thing about using bio-tech; it evolves, just like everything else in nature. Machine tech is more reliable, but, as you pointed out it quite often leave little behind.
Wrong, because the creators of the bioweapon would know the cure, and could inject their own soldiers/citizens with an anti-virus shot. Problem solved. Plus, the president who decides to launch these huge weapons wouldn't be aware of the threat of the virus mutating. He would have his Secretary of War saying "oh yes the virus is completely safe no harm would come to anyone in the U.S. trust me."and the president would be like derp de derp and give the order to launch it. kabam.
Post by
Morec0
Erm Levarus, would you not need to be immunized before you could come into contact with the pathogen delivered by the new biotech weapons? Sounds more like a lose lose situation to me. Tic Tac Toe all over again.
MoreconRivendare: willingly, or unwillingly, nuking our own planet has the same consequences. Also, the last time I looked, the entire planet was mine to live and thrive in, and everybody else's too. Even Bastards and maniacs. It's the price we pay for civilization.
Not to mention the virus could have the nasty effect of mutating into something else, likely something even more dead that we wont be prepared for. That's the thing about using bio-tech; it evolves, just like everything else in nature. Machine tech is more reliable, but, as you pointed out it quite often leave little behind.
Wrong, because the creators of the bioweapon would know the cure, and could inject their own soldiers/citizens with an anti-virus shot. Problem solved. Plus, the president who decides to launch these huge weapons wouldn't be aware of the threat of the virus mutating. He would have his Secretary of War saying "oh yes the virus is completely safe no harm would come to anyone in the U.S. trust me."and the president would be like derp de derp and give the order to launch it. kabam.
You must have missed the part where I said "the virus could have the nasty effect of mutating into somethingn else". That something else would not respond to the same treatments as the original virus, that's why the common cold is such a nuisance: even though its a simple dissease, it mutates so quickly that scientists are unable to ever create a lasting vaccine for it.
Just because the president is unnaware of a problem dosn't mean it would go away completely, and if the Secretary of War is aware of that but neglects to tell his Commander in Chief I'm pretty sure that's some form of treason - or at least have him lose his job.
Post by
301983
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
They've been saying that for the last 20 years.
Post by
MyTie
They've been saying that for the last 20 years.
People say they are going to nuke us for 20 years are finally able to, but since they have been saying it for 20 years it is nothing to worry about? Epic logic Adamsm. You sir, get the Nobel Prize for Shruggery.
Post by
Adamsm
They've been saying that for the last 20 years.
People say they are going to nuke us for 20 years are finally able to, but since they have been saying it for 20 years it is nothing to worry about? Epic logic Adamsm. You sir, get the Nobel Prize for Shruggery.
Funny that now Israel's bombs are suddenly a problem eh?
Also, it doesn't say they will attack the US, just that they could....which would get the country nuked back into the Stone Age by not just the good ole USofA, but a large number of other countries.
Edit: Also, how many times in the last 60 years have they been saying 'Oh *!@#! A nuke is gonna be launched at the US! HOLY *!@# ON A BAT!'.
Edit 2: In other other words, I'm long past the point where buzz words thrown around by talking heads doesn't bother me anymore.....the whole "Iraq has WMD's! Iraq has WMD's!" ring a bell for anyone?
Edit 3: Oh and of course, Source is from a comment posted on a WW3 simulation video.Yeah...that's a legitimate source of news.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
the whole "Iraq has WMD's! Iraq has WMD's!" ring a bell for anyone?
Please. PLEASE. Adamsm. Redeem yourself in my eyes from a state of irrelevance for the rest of our mutual associate, by doing one simple, excruciatingly simple thing: Explain the difference between the threat of Iranian WMDs now and the threat of Iraqi WMDs circa 2003. I ask you this question fully aware that I am asking it in a condescending way. Your statement, suggesting the 'familiarity' of the two situations, demands it. You either are so naive that you believe there is a similarity between the two, and therefore you are so lacking in knowledge out this topic that you should excuse yourself, or you know better, and you are making a statement 'off the cuff', which, also, doesn't belong here.
Instead of explaining to me whether this is ignorance or trolling, just swallow your pride, and correct yourself.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
