Apocolypse?

cannabineer said:

Then I challenge your claim that we have enough nukes to "Take out the land" of, i.e. resurface, the entire Middle East. The burden is on you to find supporting information, not on anyone else to show it ain't so.

Unless I can use your method and simply say:
It ain't so.
and call that using a source.
But that would just be tiresome, and I'd rather not be that. cn

Click to expand...

Ok, I looked for a source, and ya'll are right.

But you could have found a source yourselves and showed me, instead of making me do the work for you. This guy says America could move the north pole, but that's about it.
http://io9.com/5277702/could-our-nuclear-arsenal-really-destroy-the-world

cannabineer said:

No; I am not. Atom bombs do not use the same mechanism to produce energy as the sun.

Click to expand...

Yes they do.
Splitting hydrogen atoms. E=MC2

That's nuclear energy.

Think about a neutron bomb and what it can do,I think it was Russia that tested one of these things back in the 70's,they swore not to test any more of them because of how intense they go off,thinking about what technological advances have been made since then,Its scary shit to think that there very well could be something at least 5o times more powerful than the neutron bomb,its the shit no one breathes a word about that is really worisome.

Finshaggy said:

Ok, I looked for a source, and ya'll are right.

But you could have found a source yourselves and showed me, instead of making me do the work for you. This guy says America could move the north pole, but that's about it.
http://io9.com/5277702/could-our-nuclear-arsenal-really-destroy-the-world

Click to expand...

That's not the way it works, Fin.
If you make a claim, you assume the obligation to then support or retract it by and for yourself. What you propose is lazy, and unworkable. It's the intellectual equivalent of leaving your table at McD's filthy. cn

Dislexicmidget2021 said:

Think about a neutron bomb and what it can do,I think it was Russia that tested one of these things back in the 70's,they swore not to test any more of them because of how intense they go off,thinking about what technological advances have been made since then,Its scary shit to think that there very well could be something at least 5o times more powerful than the neutron bomb,its the shit no one breathes a word about that is really worisome.

Click to expand...

Neutron bombs actually have low explosive yield. They need to, in order to lay down a kill circle ad leave the structures intact. cn

cannabineer said:

So I am dissecting your claims, not trolling you. There is a fundamental difference. cn

Click to expand...

No there is NO difference.

Trolls dissect a comment, and reply to it in a way that isn't to prove anything, but to debate the "opponent". Buck does it to me all day.
I know it when I see it. And you were trolling.

cannabineer said:

That's not the way it works, Fin.
If you make a claim, you assume the obligation to then support or retract it by and for yourself. What you propose is lazy, and unworkable. It's the intellectual equivalent of leaving your table at McD's filthy. cn

Click to expand...

You guys made claims also.

I actually proved (some of) your claims. And how could I have done that if you never claimed anyhting.

Finshaggy said:

No there is NO difference.

Trolls dissect a comment, and reply to it in a way that isn't to prove anything, but to debate the "opponent". Buck does it to me all day.
I know it when I see it. And you were trolling.

Click to expand...

No, Fin. Trolls set traps for both reason and emotion. Trolls want to anger their chosen opponent. I want to do neither, and I am not doing the first. I am seeking to talk about facts, but you are taking it personally. I'd rather you didn't. I invite you to relax. cn

cannabineer said:

Neutron bombs actually have low explosive yield. They need to, in order to lay down a kill circle ad leave the structures intact. cn

Click to expand...

ok,I gotcha they are more radiatory than destructive,ERW that explains a little more now

cannabineer said:

No, Fin. Trolls set traps for both reason and emotion. Trolls want to anger their chosen opponent. I want to do neither, and I am not doing the first. I am seeking to talk about facts, but you are taking it personally. I'd rather you didn't. I invite you to relax. cn

Click to expand...

Maybe skilled trolls. But when you troll like Buck, and you did for a moment. It's not traps. Just random debating with no real point.

You even wouldn't get evidence, and made me go do it. You weren't in it for facts

"shrugs shoulders and continues to eat mushrooms from japan."

Finshaggy said:

Maybe skilled trolls. But when you troll like Buck, and you did for a moment. It's not traps. Just random debating with no real point.

You even wouldn't get evidence, and made me go do it. You weren't in it for facts

Click to expand...

I did not. I'll wager you cannot back this using my posts.

My starting point was your claim that America possessed the nukes to ruin the world 70x over. This is what I was interested in seeing you back up with some facts andor principles. Your reply was that nukes are like the sun. I didn't and don't see how that uncorrelated and imprecise opinion advances the debate.

There, Ive done some organizational work for the thread.

The problem remains: statements have been made about nukes and apocalypse, and while I've shown they cannot be right, I'm being told I'm pulling a UB. Do you leave a mess at fast food places as well? (<-- Now that would be UB-style.) cn

cannabineer said:

I did not. I'll wager you cannot back this using my posts.
\

Click to expand...

I don't care enough to try. I'm not the trolly type.

But I can tell you where it happened.

When we started talking about evidence. I had none to cite, but you probably read about it before.
If it were a REAL debate, where BOTH sides had a point to prove. You would have gotten evidence for yourself, to discredit me.

But instead you read my comments, analyzed them, and replied dickishly, with no point whatsoever to be made except "You show me evidence, and I'll show you evidence."

That's fucking TROLLING

Finshaggy said:

But I can tell you where it happened.

When we started talking about evidence. I had none to cite, but you probably read about it before.
If it were a REAL debate, where BOTH sides had a point to prove. You would have gotten evidence for yourself, to discredit me.

But instead you read my comments, analyzed them, and replied dickishly, with no point whatsoever to be made except "You show me evidence, and I'll show you evidence."

That's fucking TROLLING

Click to expand...

Part of the problem, Fin, is how hard it is to find good info on the Net. I went a'googlin', and I found this.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_atomic_bombs_will_it_take_to_destroy_the_world
Right off the bat, i can tell you it's wrong: the author states (but doesn't support ... imagine that.) that a single 100-Mt airburst will cause a nuclear winter.
But in '61 the Sovs touched off Tsar Bomba in a 57-Mt airburst. Was there a nuclear winter, or a nuclear fall, or even a nuclear momentary fresh breeze?
No. In fact, it took us flying instrumented U-2s to verify that the Sovs even detonated their big bomb.

I am emphatically not trolling you. I am however interested in sorting fact from fluff. Posting something from a site my Noscript won't even open because it's basically Facebook (I refer to your link) won't do. A credible link comes from a credible site.

Now if i made a factual statement that you challenge, let me know. I am responsible for supporting what I say. cn

Finshaggy said:

You're claiming we don't have enough nukes to do that.
And at first you were claiming we didn't even have the technology.

Don't get butthurt, just get a source.

Click to expand...

My butt's not hurting fin. I don't need a source since I'm not the one trying to prove something.

I claimed that we don't have the equipment nor the knowledge. Which is true, otherwise we would have the nukes already.

Hepheastus420 said:

My butt's not hurting fin. I don't need a source since I'm not the one trying to prove something.

I claimed that we don't have the equipment nor the knowledge. Which is true, otherwise we would have the nukes already.

Click to expand...

Not really, Heph. Nukes are instruments of policy, and not many are needed for that any more. Richard Rhodes' Twilight of the Bombs speaks to this. It was a long read, but interesting. cn

Hepheastus420 said:

I don't need a source since I'm not the one trying to prove something.

Click to expand...

Yes you were And now you're just being stupid.

You said we didn't have the technology to blow the Earth like the sun does.
You were also trying to prove that the sun will destroy us, before our own technology.
Then you were trying to prove that we didn't have enough nukes to match the sun.

You just didn't FINISH. You still TRIED to make points.

cannabineer said:

Not really, Heph. Nukes are instruments of policy, and not many are needed for that any more. Richard Rhodes' Twilight of the Bombs speaks to this. It was a long read, but interesting. cn

Click to expand...

You don't think the government would want a nuke that could rip the earth in half just to have it?

If they use nukes to shut people up, wouldn't they be really happy to say they could go suicidal bombing on the whole world to scare their enemies?

Another question, do you think we have the equipment and the knowledge to build a earth ripping nuke?

Finshaggy said:

Yes you were And now you're just being stupid.

You said we didn't have the technology to blow the Earth like the sun does.
You were also trying to prove that the sun will destroy us, before our own technology.
Then you were trying to prove that we didn't have enough nukes to match the sun.

You just didn't FINISH. You still TRIED to make points.

Click to expand...

So do you have proof that there's enough nukes to blow up the earth?