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

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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