|By Ares15 (Ares15) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 05:52 am: Edit|
I would drastically reduce our nuclear arms stockpile. It's really not necessary to have the ability to blow up the world 40 times over. Having so many nukes lying around is also asking for someone to steal one and sell it to a terrorist organization. We'd also save a lot of money.
|By Lisasimpson (Lisasimpson) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 07:20 am: Edit|
wowww, so many things to do. let's see here...there's the economy that needs fixing, all the children left behind who need education, a lot of folks who could use jobs and money.......i guess i'd have to start by..stopping the killings of innocent people, iraqi and american alike...is that a good place to start?
|By Geodude666 (Geodude666) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 08:02 am: Edit|
lol, that's so lisa simpson-ish of you^^ i can hear the lisa simpson voice saying that in my head, lol
anyways, i would turn it into a dictatorship, muwahahahaha!!!!
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 09:53 am: Edit|
After asking the question, "Is our children learning?", I would do my best to make the pie higher and put food on your family.
(Sorry, couldn't help it.)
|By Thunder77 (Thunder77) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:16 am: Edit|
It would not be wise to reduce our nuclear arms stockpile unless all the other nations agree to do the same(very unlikely). So if one of the leading nations loses its nuclear weapons while some third world country still haves them and uses them to threaten the other nations around, we will have an even bigger problem
Right now the nuclear stockpile is used as a threat to prevent other nations(with the same weapons) from attacking us. It is like a gun that you keep in your house. It is dangerous, but if you live in a bad neighborhood, I and many others would want to have a gun or some sort of weapon in my house to protect me.
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:44 am: Edit|
Nukes can be a deterrent against the instigation of conventional warfare. For example, one reason why India and Pakistan haven't gone to war is that both sides are afraid of nuclear retaliation. No sane government will ever use nukes, since they'll end up with every UN troop, carrier fleet, and bomber at their doorstep. The nukes can however, be used as a prop, saying "Don't try anything because we have a whole lot of big bombs."
However, we could ask, does the US really need THAT many nuclear bombs? There are over 1000 of them in the stockpile, which like Ares 15 says, is enough to blow up the world several times over.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:23 pm: Edit|
Russia (well the old USSR) has even more nukes.
And if you are scared about ours being "stolen" that is idiotic. Russia however has many unclaimed or "lost" nukes.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:26 pm: Edit|
question: do you guys really believe a nuke is our most powerful weapon? They have been around for a while now, i'm sure with the new technology we have been able to produce even more powerful weapons that we just don't know about for obvious reasons
|By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 01:49 pm: Edit|
Arm the homeless!
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 04:25 pm: Edit|
ScubaSteve: I do believe that the nuclear bomb is one of the most powerful weapons we have. The H-bomb has massive destructive capabilities - vaporization of living things within the primary blast radius (which I think is a few miles for the Hiroshima a-bomb), shock waves which kill people and destroy infrastruture within the secondary blast radius (a few more miles) and radiation and heat which kills about 50% of people within the tertiary blast radius (total about 6 miles from center, a-bomb). Obviously, the death and ruination of major cities is apparent. Not much else that you can ask for.
Personally, I think that biological weapons have the most destructive potential. If one could be (or has been) developed which is highly communicable, highly lethal, and kills relatively quickly, it has the potential to wipe out most of humanity. Highly communicable - spreads quickly from one person to another. This would hinder any efforts to contain or quarentine those who were affected. Highly lethal - you die, you don't just get sick and maybe tough through it. Relatively quickly - contrast with AIDS. The weapon would not work well if humans had 10 years to cure it. Biological weapons essentially self-replicate, which, obviously, bombs do not.
|By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 10:12 pm: Edit|
I agree with Ariesathena on both points.
It's quite costly and dangerous to destroy large amounts of nuclear (or chemical) weapons. And we can blow the world up three times over, not 40. Three seems about adequate to me.
|By Gottagetout (Gottagetout) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:21 pm: Edit|
As far as bio weapons go, I would think AIDS would be tops. You DON'T want something that is extremely lethal and fast -- things die and the disease has no hosts. Take ebola for instance. It's highly communicable, lethal, and fast-acting; why isn't it a world crisis? After its outbreak, almost everyone not protected in the area either died or (the very strong) survived it and destroyed the virus in their own system. Hanta virus is another example.
We've had a good decade (in the public eye) to try and cure AIDS, and haven't yet. Some people are silent carriers -- unknowing vectors of infection -- causing fast dissemination among certain populations.
The most destructive biological weapons, in my opinion, would be those that are either engineered from scratch or modified to target certain segments of a population (not possible yet, to my knowledge). They would spread silently and without noticeable symptoms for years and then begin slowly killing the infected via some kind of nondescript method such as severe diarrhea or fever.
Some have speculated that AIDS and ebola _are_ actually biological weapons, engineered and released for testing. These people are mostly discredited, however.
Another possibility would be to develop a vaccine along side your biological weapon (MI:2?) and vaccinate all of your own people against it and then release it.
For a quick "burn" of a city or something, your bio weapons may be better (the city and surroundings die but the virus kills its hosts too fast to spread far).
The first thing I would do if president would be to start treating the populace with respect. I would respect their rights both socially and economically -- something no party in America has done in a very long time.
|By Kwtortoise (Kwtortoise) on Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 11:45 pm: Edit|
I would make sure that people were taken care of--education and healthcare. Simple?
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:03 am: Edit|
Gottagetout you just scared me to the point where im considering contacting goverment officials about you....lol
|By Foreignboy (Foreignboy) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:37 am: Edit|
How do you use AIDS as a bio weapon? Force the population of a country to have unprotected sex with HIV carriers? Now THAT is scary.
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:01 am: Edit|
I would make sneezing illegal.
I would introduce legislation to require that lederhosen be worn at all times by gov't officials.
I would eat some cheese.
I would do press conferences with fake teeth and a straight face.
I would force Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney to strip down and oil-wrestle on national TV, with the winner facing Al Sharpton in the title match.
I would make the pledge of Allegiance mandatory, but replace "God" with the lyrics from "Little Rabbit Foo-foo."
|By Babybird87 (Babybird87) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit|
noodleman, I am offended.
everyone knows that it's Little *Bunny* Foo-Foo.
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 01:16 pm: Edit|
Some of the problem (or rather, good thing!) with ebola might be that the people who get it are in relatively isolated areas. Should you drop a biological weapon on a city, it would spread much more quickly, to more people, and probably not be confined to that city.
The reason that I said a bio weapon should be fast-acting is manifold. AIDS was discovered in 1981. Many people have died from it, but researchers have developed drugs to prolong the life of those with the disease and also to decrease their viral loads. Protease inhibitors came out around '96, and those extended people's lives. Newer versions, when administered early enough, are capable of reducing someone's viral load to negligable levels. While that is not a cure, it will keep people alive until the next treatment option is found. The time left to live that people who contract HIV have now is much greater than 20 years ago. Some people also seem to be immune - they've survived for nearly two decades with the disease but are not manifesting itself in a severely weakened immune system. There is obviously something to be learned about these people.
Testing is another issue. People survive long enough so that a test for HIV has been developed. Every time that I give blood, I'm tested for the disease - and I'm sure that I don't have it because it's come up negative about a dozen times. There is also the obvious STD testing available. Considering the means in which HIV is transmitted, testing does allow people who actually are rational to prevent infections.
(This leads me into another reason why AIDS is not a good biological weapon, will get into that later.)
Now, this is all true for the US and some developed countries, and true mainly of people with access to health care. The problem in undeveloped countries is lack of access to AIDS drugs, lack of education (people think it can be cured by having intercourse with a virgin), lack of prevention (women are not in the position to demand that a man wear a condom), lack of adequate testing... and I could go on. So, AIDS is a good biological weapon for under-developed areas - except for the fact that it still takes a long time to kill. Years from now, populations in Africa will be decimated (quite literally) by the virus, but that is a remarkably long time considering that many scientists believe the virus originated there from monkeys or other animals in the '60s or '70s.
I should have included something about method of transmittion in my bio weapon criteria, such as coughing, sneezing, touch, etc... but I guess that goes under communicability.
Ultimately, a biological weapon is used to either decimate a population or to cause terror. A fast-acting, highly communicable, mild symptom, highly lethal virus or bacteria would quickly decimate a population OR cause terror. Both could happen. Now, you could drop a virus in NYC, and it could quickly kill everyone there but not get very far into the rest of the country. It would still cause a good deal of terror and would destroy a significant local population.
|By Disappear_Here (Disappear_Here) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 03:19 pm: Edit|
same sex marriage legal
celebrity marriages illegal haha
|By Noodleman (Noodleman) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit|
I'm sending you to Guantanamo Bay now for insubordination. You will be forced to watch Barney 22 hours per day and will be fed nothing but mallowmars.
|By Purgeofdoors (Purgeofdoors) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:10 pm: Edit|
One more thing about AIDS that Ariesathena didn't mention...
Scientists have used variations in RNA sequence to estimate that AIDS arose in humans sometime around 1930.
Nice bioweapon you've got there. Maybe Mussolini's Italians cultured it and used it against the Abyssinians around that time, and it took a good 50 years longer than expected to have results. ;p
|By Jenesaispas (Jenesaispas) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 10:23 pm: Edit|
If I were president... I would solve world hunger and make all the poor babies free again! But, most of all, I'd be the best Miss America EVER!
*She's the one... da da da da da da da da..She's the one... Miss a-MER-ica... da da da da da*
|By Ariesathena (Ariesathena) on Sunday, June 27, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit|
Isn't it a good thing that I'm getting out of engineering research?
|By Invisible (Invisible) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:29 am: Edit|
I'd blame Canada.
Sorry couldn't help it!
"Blame Canada! Blame Canada! Da da da....etc"
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:31 am: Edit|
Yo I'd turn out all the hoes that's heterosexual
Smack conceited niggas right off the pedestal
I'd even look for my dad that I never knew
And show him how I look and my Beretta too
I'd do good , like take kids from the ghetto
Show them what they could have if they never settled
Take every white kid from high-class levels
Show them what Christmas' like, growin' up in the ghetto
Teach niggas how to spend, stack the rest
Give blunts to them niggas under massive stress
Give every bum on the street cash to invest and
Hope Harlem World blow'll be my last request
|By Craigk10 (Craigk10) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:34 am: Edit|
good song -- 24 hours to live
|By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:40 am: Edit|
Wow Scuba that was quite...enlightening?
|By Disappear_Here (Disappear_Here) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:44 am: Edit|
geez steve, you are everywhere
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:50 am: Edit|
what can i say.. im an animal and an insomniac, coming off a bad drunk who can find nothing better to that than post on CC at 249am
Geniusash-- I can serenate it to you on the beach if you would like
|By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 02:52 am: Edit|
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:02 am: Edit|
not if your italian haha
sereno-->serenata(pronounced serenate in english)-->sérénade--->serenade
and yes i love you too
|By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:26 am: Edit|
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:33 am: Edit|
|By Geniusash (Geniusash) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:37 am: Edit|
|By Gidget (Gidget) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 09:14 am: Edit|
Hey- Don't Blame Canada- -
|By Takiusproteus (Takiusproteus) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:03 pm: Edit|
Publicly propose to every nation in the world that each country give up its armed forces and sovereignty in order to be merged into a single global union for the purpose of preventing war from happening ever again.
If any of the world leaders refuses, I'll just spread propaganda displaying them as self-serving narrowminded warmongerers.
|By Scubasteve (Scubasteve) on Monday, June 28, 2004 - 03:20 pm: Edit|
all praise the communist nation
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|