Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ok...


W**FS EE-ZZ GLOBAL SAFETY SURVEY.TM

http://microscopiq.com/images/mushroom-clown-ps3.jpg


How many of those "Nuclear Bombs" does it actually take to blow the world as we know it, into a "Katillion" bits


One or two Thousand ☐


One or Two dozen ☐


Yes please x 2 with fries ☐


Russia & America have cut theirs WMD to around 1500 each ( is that true ? )


No ☐


No ☐


Not yes ☐


Does it actually make the world safer


No ☐


No ☐


No no ☐


Or is this "spin, spin " as it were ?


Yes ☐


Yes ☐


Opposite of No ☐

____________________________________



In the event of global NUCLEAR MELTDOWN


I would ( complete the phrase )........



A. ....... my own Mother with an axe


B. Kill the neighbors cats because my..........said so


C. Meditate & then............my own Mother with an axe


D. only be laughing in the face of.......









W**F

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/10605-nuclear-proliferation/
Share on other sites

3000 nukes is more than enough to extinguish most terrestrial life on the planet.


Modern nuclear warheads have a short shelf life because natural radioactive decay makes them unpredictable and/or unstable.


The warheads, known as 'pits,' have to be removed from missiles, dismantled, molten down, reprocessed (i.e. purified from fission products), reengineered and reassembled - a very expensive and dangerous process.


Economic reality has probably encouraged both sides to adopt a more cost-effective policy of MAD'ness.

Yes...


I thought so , thankyou HAL


But still, blown to a "Katillion" bits though


Oh & how many "Quitillion, Pitillon, Trillion" Dollars are they better off ?


(Like it makes any friggin diffo)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c2/Fat_man.jpg/150px-Fat_man.jpg



W**F

Perhaps the number of nuclear weapons required to knock out the enemy (putting it mildly) takes into account what percentage of those weapons may fail, in a worst case scenario, due to factors such as missle defence systems, technical problems, people refusing to press button & espionage.

> How many of those "Nuclear Bombs" does it actually

> take to blow the world as we know it, into a

> "Katillion" bits


You'd need at least a quatzillion of em.


> Given that Russia & America have cut theirs to

> around 1500 each ( is that true ? )


Dunno.


> Does it actually make the world safer


Probably not.


> Or is this "spin, spin " as it were ?


Probably.


PS. One of those handy "WOOF Multiple Choice Survey" thingys would have come in useful here...for those of us that don't know the answers.

katie1997 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ..are we talking about proliferation or

> non-proliferation here? Just thought I'd ask.


____________________________________________________


Hair..


well then the lack of it


Whilst you recover from the "Brazilian"


Read my edited OP survey



*Oooooo eyes water*



W**F


Poor pussy !


http://theclam.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/full-brazilian-wax.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Time will tell if H&B are loved or loathed, the footfall they get and generate will determine if they stay or go. That's the nature of businesses, they come and go dependant on usage. Examples are M&S, Poundland Local, Co-op, Superdrug, Mons, the chain restaurant/takeaways, the chain Estate Agents, Toolstation, Screwfix to name a few.  As much as people would like to see Lordship Lane remain a high street of independents, it is becoming clear that due to Landlords hiking rents, some are unable to survive. This leaves empty units which some of the chain brands considering it to be worth a "punt". I'd have thought that businesses operating in shops is a better alternative than a high street with multiple empty units, but what do I know, they are just thoughts on the subject.   Take a look at Croydon and Bromley where what were once thriving high streets are in decline.  I have to say that some of the prices charged by the independents are eye watering, and incomes i'd have thought have to be substantial to afford their prices. Personally I'd love a Lidl to open on what was the site of the Harvester, but I guess that would get shouted down, oh the thought of Lidl in Dulwich. Whatever next. 
    • IMO, Sealy, the best nights sleep you'll ever have.  
    • I don’t know what the shop was originally next to the big St Christopher’s but if Holland and Barrett are taking it over then surely it’s good to have a choice on Lordship Lane? The Camberwell H&B is always empty but the Brixton branch busy.  I remember when the Marks & Spencer food shop was Iceland? Now the M&S is a very busy store and at the time regenerated the high street!
    • Nor would I have done, but it came up when I googled John Lewis reviews. Do you not trust TrustPilot reviews? Even allowing for the fact that many people only post reviews when they have had poor service, 27% one star reviews is indicative of something wrong, I would say. That's 27% of 76,392 reviews. That's an awful lot of people who don't  think the service they got from John Lewis was even worth two stars, let alone more. Screenshot attached.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...