Michael Madigan wrote:
Fry em up.
--- Leland Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have to question your judgment about using nukes. There are far too
many unknowns, and the bet in terms of money, property and lives is too
high. The world has never seen a major exchange of nuclear weapon, so
nobody really know what that means. The US dropped two nuclear weapons
on Japan to bring WW II to an end, but they were the first nuclear
weapon produced, crude and impotent by today standards; analogous to the
first crude weapons discovered by early man. The nuclear weapons of
today are exponentially more powerful and destructive; probably too
powerful even for use by an aggressor.
My first choice on nuclear weapons would be to disarm. If the world is
too immature to disarm, then my second choice would be to only use nukes
as a deterret. My third choice would be to bar the use nukes for
pre-emtive stikes against preceived threats which may or may not occur
in the future.
Regards,
LelandJ
end to WW II, but these were crude, obsolete nukes developed as part of
the in the earlies phNuclear weapons have only been used twice befores
about what using nukes really mean, and the bet in terms of loss of
life, property, the pain and suffering,
You had better give that some more though, because
there would much more
falling like a rock that you think. Are you really
sure you would want
to risk using nukes???
Regards,
LelandJ
Michael Madigan wrote:
If we nuke China and India, oil prices would fall
like
a rock.
--- Hal Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Leland Jackson
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 15:34
To: ProFox Email List
Subject: Re: [OT] Focus on biofuels is foolish
I think it will take a holistic approach to meet
our
energy needs. We
can't, at this point, target a single technology,
and then have everyone
focus on moving to that single solution. That
would
be the Microsoft's
approach to the problem, I'm sure <g>, but I think
we will need to
develop energy choices, and then let the consumers
decided, based on
supply and demand pricing, as to where the country
will move towards
findiing energy independence.
Regards,
LelandJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The alternative approach (which is already being
implemented) is to
drastically diminish the use of petroleum-based
energy throughout the
rest of the world. I think we are doing it in
alphabetical order,
starting with "I." The thinking is that if we
kill
and bury enough
people soon enough, the remains will turn into
hydrocarbons, similar to
what happened with dinosaurs.
HALinNY
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance:
http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list:
http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated
otherwise,
are the opinions of the author, and do not
constitute legal or medical advice. This statement
is added to the messages for those lawyers who are
too stupid to see the obvious.
Zinedine Zidane is a butt-head
http://www.cafepress.com/zinedinezidane
Press 1 for English
http://www.cafepress.com/press1forenglis
Hate Jon Corzine? http://www.ImpeachJonCorzine.com
Hate Soccer? http://www.cafepress.com/ihatesoccer
Horse Racing Photos at
http://www.HorseRacingPix.com
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
